SITHAMBARAPPILLAI v. VINASITAMBY et al

 SITHAMBARAPPILLAI  v. VINASITAMBY et al.

 D. C, Jaffna, 24,691.

Rei vindicatio-Alternative decree for delivery of articles or payment of their value-Action of detinue-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 191, 320, and 321.

Where, in an action raised for specific delivery of certain articles wrongfully detained, or for payment of their value, defendant admitted possession of some of the articles and claimed a certain sum of money from the plaintiff on a separate account, and the Court decreed that defendant do return to the plaintiff the articles admitted by him, or pay plaintiff their value, and that defendant do further pay plaintiff Rs. 25-50, being the difference between the value of certain articles claimed by plaintiff and the amount found to be due by plaintiff to defendant.

Held, that such a decree was unworkable and irregular.

Held, also, that in an action rei vindicatio for recovery of specific movable property, an alternative decree for payment of its value is bad.

The English action of detinue is inconsistent with sections 320 and 321 of the Civil Procedure Code, and section 191 does not authorize the alternative form of decree entered.

THE plaintiff complained that certain jewels and other goods belonging to the estate of his deceased wife, specifically described and valued in the schedule annexed to the plaint, were wrongfully detained by the defendants, and he prayed that " the " defendants be decreed to restore and deliver to the plaintiff, as " administrator of his deceased wife, the several jewellery, goods, " and chattels declared in the schedule marked A, or to pay the "plaintiff, as such administrator, the sum of Rs. 985 if such " possession cannot be had."

The defendants admitted plaintiff's right to six out of the nineteen jewels named in the plaint, and claimed payment of Rs. 165, being medical and funeral expenses they had incurred on account of the deceased.

The District Judge found that plaintiff was entitled to receive not only the six articles admitted by the defendants, but three others also, which latter were valued at Rs. 25.50. He further found that defendants had made good their claim for funeral expenses for Rs. 49.46, but not for medical expenses.

Plaintiff appealed.

Sampayo (with him Pereira and Senathi Raja), for appellant.

Ramanathan, S.-G. (with him Dornhorst and Bawa), for defendants respondent.

The case was argued on the merits on 18th June, 1895, and judgment reserved.

On a subsequent day thei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document