CYRIL FERNANDO

VS.

ELIYATAMBI AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
MALALGODA, J.
THURAIRAJA, J.
AMARASEKARA, J.
SC/APPEAL/120/2014
WP/HCCP/MT/22/02/F
DC MT LAVINIA 347/94/L
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019

Declaration of title and ejectment -Power of Attorney-Emancipation from minority-Unassisted contracts involving a minor-Subsequent ratification-Laesio enormis

When the plaintiff was a minor and resident in the United Kingdom, his father, the 2nd defendant, was appointed his power of attorney holder. The plaintiff became the owner of the land in suit after the execution of the said power of attorney. The 2nd defendant transferred the land to the 1st defendant by a deed of transfer. The 1st defendant transferred it to the 3rd defendant and the latter to the 4th defendant.

The plaintiff filed this action in the District Court seeking a declaration of title to the land in suit, ejectment of the 1st-4th defendants there from and damages, mainly on the basis that at the time of the execution of the power of attorney he was a minor and the 2nd defendant transferred the land without his knowledge and therefore all three deeds are void.

The 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants in their answers sought dismissal of the action. The 2nd defendant took up the position that the land was transferred to the 1st defendant as security for a loan.

The District Court held with the plaintiff. On appeal, the High Court affirmed it. The 1st defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held :

1. Even if the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the execution of the power of attorney, the law recognises different ways of termination of minority and one such way is emancipation, which is a question of fact. This involves proof of liberty and independence, freedom from parental control and the carrying on by the minor of a business, profession, trade or occupation etc. The evidence led in this case shows that the plaintiff had emancipated himself from the status of a minor during the time of his minority.

2. A contract upon ratification by a minor after attaining majority becomes as binding upon him as if it had been executed after his majority and it is effective from the time the contract was made. Ratification may be express or implied from some act by the minor manifesting an intention to ratify. The evidence led in the case shows that the plaintiff ratified the execution of the power of attorney by conduct in that he used the power of attorney to enter into contracts after he became a major.

3. No reliable evidence was adduced to show that the 1st defendant bought or the second defendant sold the land at less than half the value of the property to apply the doctrine of laesio enormis.

Cases referred to :

1. Sheila Senavirathne v. Shereen Dharmarathna [1997] 1 Sri LR 76

2. Gunasekara Hamini v. Don Baron 5 NLR 273 at 279

3. Siriwardene v. Banda (1892) 2 CL. Rep 99 at 101

4. Selohamy v. Raphief (1889) 1 SCR 73

5. Andiris Appu v. Abanchi Appu (1902) 3 Browne 12

6. Manuel Naide v. Adrian Hamy (1909) 12 NLR 259

7. Saibo v. Perera (1915) 4 Bal. N. 57

8. Fernando v. Fernando (1916) 19 NLR 193

9. Silva v. Mohamadu (1916) 19 NLR 426

10. Breytenbach v. Frankel (1913) AD 390

11. Wickremaratna v. Josephine Silva (1959) 63 NLR 569

12. Wickramasinghe v. Corrine De Zoysa [2002] 1 Sri LR 33

13. Ramen Chetty v. Silva 15 NLR 286

14. Ceylon Plywoods Corporation v. Samastha Lanka G.N.S.M. and Rajya Sanstha Sevaka Sangamaya [1992] 1 Sri LR 157

15. Vijith Abraham De Silva v. S.P. Claris De Silva (SC/APPEAL/44/2012, SC Minutes of 14.12.2015)

16. Adaicappa v. Cook 31 NLR 385

17. Marshall v. Senaviratne 36 NLR 369 at 382

18. Bastiam Pillai v. Anna Fernando 54 NLR 113

19. Harper v. Godsell 1870 LR 5 QB 422 at 427

20. Surangi v. Rodrigo [2003] 3 Sri LR 35

APPEAL from the Judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal of Mount Lavinia.

Anuruddha Dharmaratne with lndika Jayaweera for the 1st Defendant- Ap