Perera V. Fernando

Present: Ennis J. and De Sampayo A.J.

PERERA v. FERNANDO.

348-349-D. C. Chilaw, 4,942.

Trust-Evidence-Oral evidence to prove that a deed of sale was in reality a mortgage-Evidence Ordinance, 8. 92,

Where a person transferred a land to another by a notarial deed, purporting on the face of it to sell the land, it is not open to the transferor to prove by oral evidence that the transaction was in reality a mortgage, and that the transferee agreed to re-convey the property on payment of the money advanced.

The admission of oral evidence to vary the deed of sale is in contravention of section 92 of the Evidence Ordinance.

The agreement to re-sell is not a trust, but is a pure contract for the purchase and sale of immovable property.

THE facts are fully set out in the judgment of De Sampayo A.J,

348.-Bawa, K.C. (with him F. R, Dias), for first defendant, appellant.

Samarawickreme, for respondent.

349.-A. St. V. Jayawardene, for appellant.

A. Drieberg (with him G. Koch), for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 6, 1914. Ennis J.-

In this case the plaintiff by deed No. 89 of December 17, 1906, conveyed to one Diego Perera certain lands. Diego Pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document