082-NLR-NLR-V-07-TIKIRI-MENIKA-v.-DEONIS.pdf
( 387 )
TIKIRI MENIKA v. DEONIS.
C. B., Galagedara, 1,257.
Judgment—Irregularity of a Judge writing out hie judgment after he becamefunctus officio—Consent of parties.
A judgment written out by *4 Commissioner of the Court oi Bequestsafter he became functus officio and delivered by his successor in office
with the consent of the parties is bad, notwithstanding such consent.
e
A judgment which does not deal with the point in issue and does notpronounce a finding definitely on them is not a judicial pronouncement?Nor must judgment be delayed for two months after (he case has beenclosed.
T
HE main question ’for decision in this case was whethercertain lots of land constituted the land called Hitinawatte,
and whether Dingiri Banda, plaintiff’s vendor, was entitled to all
1903.
July 29.
( 338 )
1903. the said allotments, and whether he, and after him the plaintiff,.
July 29. possessed the same adversely to the defendant for over ten.~ years.
The case was heard by Mr. J. H. Carbery on the 14th July and13th August, and judgment reserved. His judgment dated the29th October, 1900, was forwarded from Kurunegala to Galagedara,and was read on the 21st September, 1901. It was delivered by hissuccessor iu office, Mr. J. C. Molamure, after due notice had beenissued to the parties and their consent to the delivery of thejudgment taken. .
The judgment was in favour of the plaintiff.
‘The ilefendant appealed. The case came on for argument on27th July, 1903.
E. II7. Jay award ene, for appellant, urged, inter alia, that asMr. Carbery had ceased, at the time of writing his judgment, to be•Commissioner of the Court of Requests of Galagedara, his judgmentwas not valid. He was functus officio when he wrote it. It hadbeen delayed two months after the case was closed, and the findingof the facts is vague.
Cur. adv. milt.
29th July, 1903. Grenier, A..J.—
This case must go back for a new trial. In the first place, I findthat Mr. Carbery was functus officio at the time he deliveredjudgment in this case. Had the judgment been written by himduring his tenure of office, it would have been competent for hissuccessor to have delivered it; but he seems to have written outhis judgment after he had ceased to be Commissioner, and I do notthink the consent of the parties served .to make the judgmentvalid.
On another ground also, I think it advisable, although I muchregret it, that there should be a new trial. Even if I considerMr. Carbery s judgment a valid on% he has not dealt with thepoints in issue between the parties, and has pronounced no findingof a definite character. All Jje says is that the evidence as to'possession on both sides is confusing and contradictory, and thaton the paper title plaintiff has made out a good ease. This is nota judicial pronouncement upon the issues framed by him. Thejudgment appears tc have been written in a hurry, and nearly
two months after the case on both sides had been closed.
I *
There will be no costs off this appeal. The costs hithertoincurred in the Court below will be borne by each party.