007-NLR-NLR-V-37-WEERASINGHE-HAMINE-v.-DIAS.pdf
Weerasinahe Ha-mine ». Dias.
27
1935Present: Koch A.J.
WEERASINGHE HAMINE v. DIAS.
42—C. R. Gampola, 1,713.
Promissory note—Note payable to a person or his “ barakaradee ”—Validityof yiote.
Where a promissory note was drawn in Sinhalese in favour of a personon his “ barakaradee ”,—
Held, that the note was a valid one.
A PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Gampola.
Peter de Silva, for plaintiff, appellant.
No appearance for defendant, respondent.
i 37 Times L. R. 72.
28
KOCH A.J.—Weerasinghe Hamine v. Dias.
June 26, 1935. Koch A.J.—
The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the documentsued on is a promissory note.
The learned Commissioner, acting on the footing that the wordsappearing in the document made the debt due on it payable to theappellant or her assigns, dismissed the appellant’s action on the groundthat the document therefore was not in law a promissory note. If thewords in question, which are in Sinhalese, when correctly translatedmeant “ assigns ”, the Commissioner’s finding would be correct. Thedecision of this Court in Peter v. Suriapperuma' would be exactly inpoint.
The Commissioner, however, proceeded on a translation that wasfaulty. The material word or words in the original have not thesignificance that the word “ assigns ” has in English law. The wordin the original is “ Barakaradee This word has been held by thisCourt in *S. C. 124—C. R. Gampola, 5,329 (S. C. Minutes, September 1,1922) to mean “a person who comes into possession of the documentin the proper manner ” when correctly stated. This signifies somethingdifferent from what “ assigns ” does. I agree with the opinion expressedby Ennis J. and hold that the document sued upon is a promissorynote.
Mr. E. F. de Silva, Proctor for the'respondent, taken his case on issue Iand abandoned issue 2. My finding decides issue 1 in favour of theappellant.
The judgment of the Court of Requests is set aside . Let decree beentered in favour of the appellant as prayed for with costs. The appellantis entitled to her costs of appeal.
*S. C. 124—C. R. Gampola 5,329.
September 1, 1932. Ennis J.—
This was an action on a promissory note by the payee against the heirs of themaker. The only question in the case was whether the note was in, legal form.The note is in Sinhalese and the expression used in it “ Barakaradee ” was translatedin the translations filed in the case as “ assignees ”. Whereupon the Commissionerof Requests held on the authority of the case of Peter v. Suriapperuma ' that theaction would not lie. In appeal it is being urged that the word “ Barakaradee ”has not been correctly translated. On reference to the Registrar who was for manyyears Sinhalese Interpreter to the^Courts, he says that the word means “ the personwho comes into possession of the document in the proper manner ”. That being sothe document complies sufficiently with the requirements of the Bills of ExchangeAct as indicating the person who could recover on the note. I would accordinglyallow the appeal with costs and give judgment for the plaintiff with costs againstall the defendants.
' 20 X. L. H. 318.