Wijesekera Et Al. V. Perera

Present: Hutchinson C.J. and Grenier J.   Feb.3,1911

WIJESEKERA et al. v. PERERA.

322- D. C. Colombo, 30,890.

Public Servants' Liabilities Ordinance, No. 2 of 1899, s. 3-Agreement to give dowry-Is it " security " ?

An agreement in writing to give a specified sum by way of dowry is not a security within the meaning of section 3, subsection (c), of " The Public Servants' Liabilities Ordinance."

The word " security " must be read as if it were ejusdum generis with the other documents mentioned in section 3, sub-section (c).

THE facts are set out in the judgment of Hutchinson C.J.

Allan Drieberg, for the appellant.-The agreement sued upon is not a security within the meaning of " The Public Servants' Liabilities Ordinance." The context shows that the word " security " applies to documents of the nature of those expressly mentioned in the sub-section-promissory notes, bills of exchange, bonds, &c. The real object of sub-section (c) is to prevent an evasion of subsections (a) and (b). A security, speaking generally, " is anything that makes the money more assured in its payment or more readily recoverable" (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, p. 1815). The term " security " cannot be understood as referring to what is merely evidence of a debt; an I. O. U. is not a security.

The agreement sued upon now does not gain any additional force by reason of its having been reduced to writing.

If the interpretation of the District Judge be accepted, even a contract of sale would be a security. Counsel also referred to In re Rollason,1 [(1887) 34 Ch. Div. 495.] Nagamuttu v. Kathirasamen.2(1907) 2 A. C. R. 165.

Bawa (with him A. St. V. Jayewardene), for the respondent.-The action on the writing is obnoxious to sub-section (c) of section 3 of the Ordinance. According to Stroud's definition cited by the appellant's counsel, anything is a security which renders the debt more easily assured or recoverable. The agreement sued upon comes within that definition. [Hutchinson C.J.-Is a written order to send goods to a shopkeeper a security ?] No. The obligation to pay arises on the delivery of the goods and not on the order. The contract sued upon in this action creates the debt.

The document sued upon may be said to be either a bond or a promissory note, [Hutchinson C.J.-It cannot be called a promissory note for many reasons; it is not unconditional.]

The term " valuable security " is defined in the Penal Code. This agreement falls within that definition. [Hutchinson CJ.- That definition is only for the purpose of the Penal Code.]

The term " security " as defined in the Encyclopoedia of the Laws of England includes every document or transaction by which the payment of money is assured or its recovery facilitated. The Imperial Dictionary defines security as follows: An evidence of debt or of property, as a bond, a certificate of stock, or the like. Counsel referred to Suttukkammah v. Vachchiravagu.1 []

Allan Drieberg, in reply.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 3, 1911. Hutchinson C.J.-

The plaintiffs alleged that by an agreement in writing between the first plaintiff and the defendant it was agreed that the first plaintiff should marry the second plaintiff, who is the defendant's daughter, within three years from the date of the agreement, and that in consideration of the marriage the defendant should give the second plaintiff on the day of the marriage Rs. 7,000, or immovable property to the value of Rs. 7,000, and that in accordance with the agreement the first plaintiff married the second plaintiff within the three years, and the plaintiffs accordingly claim Rs. 7,000. The answer, as amended, if I rightly understand it, admits the marriage at the date stated in the plaint, and admits the agreement alleged in the plaint, except that its terms are not correctly set out in the plaint, and further says that the marriage was not in pursuance of any agreement whatsoever. The effect of this not very

Click Here to Read the rest of this document