Back
WHITHAM v. PICHCHE MUTTU KANKANI
NLR6V289
WHITHAM v. PICHCHE MUTTU KANKANI.
D. C., Kandy, 13,172.
Promissory note-Action under chapter 53 of the Civil Procedure Code- Defence to such action-Claim in reconvention for unliquidated damages -Transactions between superintendent of an estate and his head kankani -Position of head kankani-His relations between superintendent and sub-kankanies and coolies-Promissory note by head kankani-Purpose for which the note was given-Subsequent difference between superintendent and head kankani-Interference of superintendent with head kankani's coolies-Severence of head kankani's responsibility-Right of superintendent to sue him on promissory note-Validity of plea that note was given, in pursuance of a well-known custom, by way of security for repayment of advances made to coolies.
A claim in reconvention for unliquidated damages is a " defence " to an action on a promissory note instituted under chapter 53 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The employment of coolies on estates up-country is effected according to a well-known custom, whereby the head kankani of an estate desiring employment on another estate comes to it with a tundu or memorandum received from his present employer showing the amount due to the estate from the coolies on advances. The would be employer gives the kankani a cheque for the amount appearing in the tundu in favour of the present employer, who thereupon permits the kankani and his coolies to serve on the new estate. On arrival, the kankani gives the superintendent a promissory note for the amount of the advances received on account of the coolies, and in turn takes promissory notes from his sub-kanganies. By this arrangement the superintendent avoids the inconvenience of having to treat with each cooly, and so long as the coolies continue under the head kankani, the superintendent obtains on pay days and other occasions a reduction of the debt due to the estate.
In view of such a custom, a promissory note signed by the head kankani in favour of the superintendent, though containing an unconditional promise to pay on demand or on a certain date, must be looked upon as a note given for a special purpose and subject to special conditions.
So long as there is no severance of connection between the kankanies, coolies, and the estate, the note cannot be put in suit. But if it becomes impossible by no fault of the superintendent to induce the coolies to pay off their debt, the liability of the head kankani to the estate becomes actual.
If the superintendent interferes with the coolies and severs their connection with the head kankani, such conduct would discharge the latter from his liability.
The promissory note of the head kankani is only a security for the advances made to the coolies and sub-kankanies, and it is the duty of the superintendent who comes into Court with such a note , to prove failure on the part of the principal debtors to pay the amounts due by them.
ACTION on a promissory note for Rs. 4,641.19 made by the defendant as follows: -
" Kadawella, Watawala, 2nd October, 1897. On demand, 1, Pichche Muttu, head kankani, do promise to pay to John Whitham, or the Superintendent of Kadawella estate
for the time being, or order, the sum of Rs. 4,641.19 for value received."
The plaintiff prayed in his plaint for leave to proceed under chapter 53 of the Civil Procedure Code, and for judgment for the amount due at the time of the plaint, viz., Rs. 3,480, with interest thereon.
Summons being allowed, the defendant submitted by his petition that he had a good and valid defence in the case; that he made the note sued on, but was not indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatsoever; and that the said note was made in the following circumstances: -
At the time of the making of the note the petitioner was employed as the head kankani of Kadawella estate, and had under him a gang of 148 coolies, including 13 sub-kankanies. In October, 1897, his sub-kank
