Raman Chetty V. Weerapatiran Kangany

[FULL BENCH.]

Present : The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice,
Mr. Justice Wood Renton, and Mr. Justice Grenier.

RAMAN CHETTY v. WEERAPATIRAN KANGANY.

D. C, Kurunegala, 3,841.

Action against kangany on promissory notes executed before Ordinance No. 9 of 1909 came into operation - Judgment obtained after Ordinance came into operation-Kangany not liable to arrest.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a kangany, on February 10, 1910, on two promissory notes dated October 22, 1908, and January 24, 1909, and obtained decree in March, 1910.

Held, that the defendant was not liable to arrest for the debt. (1) (Per Hutchinson C.J. and Wood Renton J.) The plaintiff had. at the time when Ordinance No. 9 of 1909 came into operation, " acquired " no " right" to enforce his decree by imprisonment within the meaning of section S (3) (b) of Ordinance No. 21 of 1901. (2) (Per Wood Renton and Grenier JJ.) Apart altogether from the provisions of that Ordinance (No. 21 of 1901), section 19 enacted by Ordinance No. 9 of 1909 is retrospective.

Ganier v. Suppen Kangany1 over-ruled.

THE facts of this case are fully set out in the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document