SUPPRAMANIAPILLAI v. KALIKUTTY.

 

Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.

 

SUPPRAMANIAPILLAI v. KALIKUTTY.

 

C. R ., Batticaloa, 12,626.

 

    " Bond," meaning of-Prescription-Agreement to deliver movable property-Ordinance No. 22 of 1871.
 
    Where the defendant having borrowed a certain quantity of paddy from the plaintiff agreed by a notarially attested document, stamped as an agreement, to return the said quantity of paddy, together with an additional quantity by way of profit, and in default of such delivery, to pay the value thereof,-
 
    Held, that the said agreement was a " bond " within the meaning of section 6 of the Prescription Ordinance (No. 22 of 1871), and was prescribed in ten years.

Tissera v. Tissera 1 followed.
 

THE  plaintiff  sued  the  defendant  to  recover  a  sum of  Rs. 260 and interest alleged to be due on an agreement, which was as follows: -

 

?The 2nd day of August 1900. I, Sinnetamby Kalikutty of Mangentoduvai in Manmunai pattu, Batticaloa, have justly and truly borrowed and received from Settiyar Suppramaniapillai of Arappattai, in the said pattu, a quantity of ten amunams of paddy. Its present value is rupees

Click Here to Read the rest of this document