KIRIMENIKA v. DURAYA et al
005-NLR-NLR-V-17-KIRIMENIKA-v.-DURAYA-et-al.pdf ( 11 ) Present: LasceUes C.J. and Wood Benton J. KIBIMENIKA v. DUEATA et al. 63—D. G. Kegalla, 3,210. Deed thirty years old—Duplicate produced from the Registrar-General's Office—Admissible in evidence without further proof. A duplicate of a deed over thirty years old produced from theoffice of the Eegistrar-General is admissible in evidence withoutfurther…
THEVCHANAMOORTHY et al , Appellants, and APPAKUDDY et al , Respondents
079-NLR-NLR-V-51-THEVCHANAMOORTHY-et-al-Appellants-and-APPAKUDDY-et-al-Respondents.pdf ThevcJtanamoorthy v. Appakuddy 317 1950Present: Jayetileke S.P.J. and Gunasekara J.THKVOHANAMOORTHY et al„ Appellants, awl APPAKUDDY et al.,Respondents S. C. 393—D. C. -Jaffna, 1,159 Partition Ordinance—Section 6—Commissioner's scheme of partition—lie-issueof commission to Commissioner to submit afresh scheme—Return of commission—Duty of Court to issue notice to all parties again—Co-owner's tight to be allottedportion which contains…
SILVA v. SOYSA et al
021-NLR-NLR-V-17-SILVA-v.-SOYSA-et-al.pdf ( 67 ) ♦ [Pull Bench.] Present : Pereira J., Ennis J., and De Sampayo A.J. SILVA v. SOTS A et al. 146—D. C. Colombo, 32,015. Partition—Land sold under Ordinance—Subject to existing leases. Per Pebbiba J. and Ennis. J. (De Sampayo A.J. dissentiente).—The word " incumbrance" in section 8 of the Partition Ordi-nance…
THE KING v. ARUMUGAM
095-NLR-NLR-V-51-THE-KING-v.-ARUMUGAM.pdf 384 DIAS J■—The King v. Arumugnm [Assize Court] Present: Dias J. THE KING v. ARUMUGAM S. C. 22—M. C. Chavakachcheri, 28,514 Hindu marriage—Dissolution—Decree of Court necessary—Wife's competency totestify against husband—Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 11), section 120. A Hindu customary marriago cannot be dissolved in any other way than bydecree of a Court. A wife…
SOYSA v. SOYSA
037-NLR-NLR-V-17-SOYSA-v.-SOYSA.pdf ( 118 ) 1913. ♦Present: Pereira J; and Ennis J. SOYSA v. SOYSA. 227—D. G. Kalutara, 5,229. Claim prescribed on the face of plaint—Action dismissed without con-sideration of averments in the answer. If on the footing of the averments in a plaint the claim madetherein is clearly prescribed, the claim is liable to…
WICKRAMANAYAKE v. ABEYWARDENE et al
054-NLR-NLR-V-17-WICKRAMANAYAKE-v.-ABEYWARDENE-et-al.pdf Present : Pereira J. and Ennis J.WICXBAMANAYAKE v. ABEYWARDENE et al. 432—D. C. Matara, 5,716. Agreement by B to convey land to plaintiff—Conveyance, by heirs of B toC—Action by plaintiff against the administrator of. B’s estate.and C and the heirs of B to cancel deed in favour of C and for. aconveyance in…
FERNANDO , Appellant, and PAIVA , Respondent
127-NLR-NLR-V-51-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-PAIVA-Respondent.pdf Fernando v. Paha 1950Present: Basnayake J.FERNANDO, Appellant, and PAIVA, Respondent S.C. 9—C. R. Colombo, 18,917 Rent Restriction Act—Claim that premises are required, for occupation by a memberof landlord's family—Should that person give evidence ?—Act No. 29 of 1948—Section IS (c). When a landlord 9ooks to ejoct a tenant under section 13 (o) of…
DAWBAREN v. RYOL
070-NLR-NLR-V-17-DAWBAREN-v.-RYOL.pdf ( 216 1914. Present : Lascelles C.J. and De> Sampayo A.J.DAWBAREN v. RYOL. 10—D G. Kandy, 21,101. Costs—Consultation fee—Conference between one advocate and proctor isnot consultation. The term *' consultation " as used in the schedule HI, to theOiyil Procedure Code does not refer to a meeting of one advocatewith a proctor. A…
STANDERD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Appellant, and JAYASURIYA, Respondent
006-NLR-NLR-V-53-STANDERD-VACUUM-OIL-COMPANY-Appellant-and-JAYASURIYA-Respondent.pdf 22 GUNASEKABA J.—Standard-Vacuum Oil Company r. Jaijasuriya 1951Present: Gratiaen J. and Gunasekara J.STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Appellant, amiJAYASURIYA, Respondent S. C. 272—D. C. Colombo, 21,562 M Kent Restriction Act, No. 29 of 1948—Sections 2 (5) and 27—Distinction between" business premises " and “ residential premises ”—“ Excepted premises ”. Where certain premises situated in…