Category / NLR_V_50
KUDOOS BHAI , Appellant, and VISVALINGAM, Respondent
015-NLR-NLR-V-50-KUDOOS-BHAI-Appellant-and-VISVALINGAM-Respondent.pdf NAGALINGAM J.—Kudooa Shat v. V isvalingam. 59 1948Present : Nagalingam J. KUDOOS BHAI, Appellant, and VTSVAUNGrAM, Respondent. S. C. 84—G. R. Colombo, 4,941. Landlord and tenant—Action for ejectment—Joinder of sub-tenant asdefendant—Improper—Sub-tenant bound by decree—Liable to beejected—Civil Procedure Code, Section 325. In an action by a landlord against his tenant for ejectment the joinderof…
MENIKA et al., Appellants, and DHAMMANANDA, Respondent
032-NLR-NLR-V-50-MENIKA-et-al.-Appellants-and-DHAMMANANDA-Respondent.pdf 126 CANEKE.'RATNE J.—Menikav. Dhammananda 1948Present: Canekeratne and Dias JJ. MENIK A el al., Appellants, and DHAMMANANDA, Respondent S. C. 518—D. C. Kandy, 982 Possessory action—Field not belonging to temple—Possessed as part oftemporalities—Juristic possession—Right of Viharadhipathi to decree forejectment. Where a field which did not form part of the property of a vihare waspossessed…
CABAGASINGHAM, Appellant, and URBAN COUNCIL, TRINCOMALEE, Respondent
048-NLR-NLR-V-50-CABAGASINGHAM-Appellant-and-URBAN-COUNCIL-TRINCOMALEE-Respondent.pdf BASNAYAKK J.—Canagasinghani v. Urban Council, Trineomalee 191 1948Present : Basnayake J. UANAGASIXGHAM, Appellant, anl URBAN COUNCIL,TRINCOMALEE, Respondent ■S’. C. 693—M. C. Trincom alee, 521 Housing and Town Im-prooements Ordinance—Building of external wall—Notconnected with building—-No offence—Section 6 (2) (a) and 6 (1). The building of a wall across one’s land is not an infringement…
DARLIS APPU, Applicant, and DAVID SINGHO, Respondent
064-NLR-NLR-V-50-DARLIS-APPU-Applicant-and-DAVID-SINGHO-Respondent.pdf DIAS J.—Darlis Appu v. David Singho 241 1948Present : Dias and Windham JJ. DILRLIS APPU, Appellant, and DAVID SINGHO, Respondent*S. C. 125—D. O. Matara, 17,334 Negligence—Damage by fall of coconut tree—Duty of oumer—Act of Ood. Where the defendant took no steps to prevent a coconut tree, which,to his knowledge, was a potential source…
THE KING V. GABO SINGHO et al
097-NLR-NLR-V-50-THE-KING-V.-GABO-SINGHO-et-al.pdf WIJBYEWARDENE A.C.J.—■The King v. Gabo Singho 373 1948[Couet os’ Crtthttjat. Appeal] Present : Wijeyewardene A.C.J. (President), Jayetileke S.P.J. andNagalingam J.THE KING v. GABO SINGHO et al. Appeals Nos. 28—33, with Applications Nos. 120—125S. C. 22—M. C. Panadure, 44,174 •Court of Criminal Appeal—Charge of unlawful assembly—Common object—-Liability of one accused for act of another—Particulars…
THE KING v. MARTIN APPUHAMY
113-NLR-NLR-V-50-THE-KING-v.-MARTIN-APPUHAMY.pdf 456 JAYETILEKE S.P.J.—The King v. Martin A.j>puharmy [Court of Criminal Appeal] 1949Present: Jayetileke S.P.J. (President], Canekeratne andWindham J.THE KING v. MARTIN APPTJHAMYApplication 73 of 1949S. C. 11—M. C. Matara, 8,442 Court of Criminal Appeal—Right of private defence—Failure of Judge toexplain—Misdirection. In a, case involving private defence the failure of the judge to explainto…
PENDERLAN, et al., Appellants, and PENDERLAN, Respondent
129-NLR-NLR-V-50-PENDERLAN-et-al.-Appellants-and-PENDERLAN-Respondent.pdf Penderlan v. Pender lan, 513 1948Present: Dias and Basnayake JJ.PENDERLA2SF, et al., Appellants, and PENDERDAJSr, RespondentS. C. 251-252—D. O. CUlaw, 11,937 Evidence—Sale of immovable-—Fictitious transaction—No consideration—Oral Evidence—Admissibility—-Evidence Ordinance-—Section 92. The prohibition in section 92 of the Evidence Ordinance does notextend to a case where it is sought to prove that the transaction inquestion…
GEORGE, Appellant, and RICHARD, Respondent
033-NLR-NLR-V-50-GEORGE-Appellant-and-RICHARD-Respondent.pdf 128 George v. Richard 1948Present: Nagalingam J.GEORGE, Appellant, and RICHARD, RespondentS. C. 154—C. R. Panadure, 11,903Rent Restriction Ordinance—Rent in arrears—Tendered before action filed—Landlord cannot sue—Ordinance No. 60 of 1942, Section 8 {a). An action for ejectment is not maintainable under proviso (a) tosection 8 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance unless the rent has…