Siman V. Silunduhamy Et Al.

June.20,1911    Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J.

SIMAN v. SILUNDUHAMY et al.

85- D. C. Matara, 1,438.

Oaths Ordinance, No. 9 of 1905-Agreement to take the oath -Subsequent refusal-Procedure.

Where a party to a suit agrees to take the derisory oath and then changes his mind, he is in the same position as a person who had originally refused to do so; in such a case the Court should record the fact of the refusal to take the oath and any reason assigned for the refusal, and then proceed to try the case in the ordinary course.

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

Allan Drieberg, for the appellant.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the respondents.

June 20, 1911. Lascelles C.J.-

This is a testamentary action in which two of the heirs take exception to certain items in the account of the administrator, namely, an item of Rs. 25, which the administrator claims to have expended out of his own pocket for funeral expenses, and a further item of Rs. 51. Now, when the objections were heard in Court, an agreement was arrived at to refer the matters in dispute to the decisory oath of the parties; and it was agreed that if the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document