Fonseka Et Al., V. Narayanan Chetty

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Be Sampayo A.J.

FONSEKA et al. v. NARAYANAN CHETTY.

67-D. C. Negombo, 8,256.

Evidence-Mortgage bond-Variation of terms of bond by subsequent non-notarial document.

In 1903 A executed a mortgage bond (hypothecating land) whereby he bound himself to pay B on demand the sum of Rs. 1,500 with interest.

In 1906 the parties came to a new agreement-which was embodied in writing, but not notarially attested-the purport of which was, not only to change the method of payment, but also to increase the burden of the debt, and thus to make the security to bear a larger debt.

Held, that the non-notarial agreement was inadmissible in evidence for proving the variation of the terms of the original bond.

The document (non-notarial) constitutes one entire promise, which is partly within and partly without section 2 of Ordinance

No. 7 of 1840, and is therefore not enforceable in any respect.

Kiri Banda v. Ukku Banda,1 and Lushington. v. Carolis.2 distinguished.

THE facts are set out in the following judgment of the District Judge (John Scott, Esq.,): -

Plaintiff and his wife in December, 1903, borrowed Rs. 1,500 on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document