Back
ALUBHAY v. MOHIDEEN ET AL.
NLR18V486
1916. Present
: Wood Renton C.J. and De Sampayo J.
ALUBHAY v. MOHIDEEN et al.
140-D. C. Colombo, 42,918.
Injuction-Courts Ordinance, 1889, s, 87 (3)-Claim to compensation under Riot
Damages Ordinance, No. 23 of 1915.
Before granting an injunction under section 87. sub-section (3), of the Courts
Ordinance. 1889, the Court should find on sufficient
material not only that the defendant threatened or was about to dispose of the
property, bat that he had the intention to defraud
the plaintiff thereby.
DE SAMPAYO J.-A specific debt due to the defendant from a third party may
possibly come within that description of property, but I find it difficult to
regard a claim for compensation payable under the Riot Damages Ordinance, No. 23
of 1915, as property in the nature of a debt.
THE
facts are fully set out in the judgment of De Sampayo
Bawa, K.C. (with him Weinman), for first and second defendants, appellants.
A. St. V. Jayewardene (with him F. M. de Saram), for plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 28, 1916. DE SAMPAYO J.-
This is a somewhat extraordinary case. The plaintiff has sued four defendants,
who are alleged to be partners trading at Wattegama, upon a number of
promissory notes, which appear to have been signed by the fourth defendant with
a certain vilasam. The total sum claimed is Rs. 4,608.98. The plaint, in
addition to the ordinary allegations, states that the defendants are to be
awarded by the Government Agent of the Central Province a sum of Rs. 12,000 as
compensation for damages sustained by them during the recent disturbances, that
the defendants are not possessed of any property, and that " if the said sum of
Rs. 12,000 be paid to them, the plaintiff will not be able to obtain
satisfaction of her said claim, and' the plaintiff verily believes that the
defendants will dispose of the said sum of Rs. 12,000, when so paid to them,
with intent to defraud the plaintiff, and the same is an act in violation of the
plaintiff's right, and will tend to render the judgment to be secured
ineffectual. " The plaint concludes with a prayer for an injunction restraining
the defendants from receiving the said sum of money, and for an order on the.
Government Agent not to pay the same to them pending the
hearing and determination of the action. With the plaint the plaintiff
'submitted an affidavit containing the same statements as I have just quoted,
but no other facts or particulars. On presenting the plaint with the affidavit
the plaintiff applied for an injunction in terms of the prayer of the plaint.
This Court issued an interim, injunction, and fixed a date for consideration of
the application. The first and second defendants then appeared and submitted an
affidavit, in which they denied the alleged partnership and the authority of the
fourth defendant to sign the promissory notes on their behalf, and stated that
the first defendant, who had an extensive business as a trader at Wattegama,
alone carried it on. They admitted that the damages due to the first defendant
were assessed at Rs. 12,000, and stated that of this amount Rs. 6,000 had
already been paid to the first defendant and had been invested by him in
repairing and improving his boutique and residence at Wattegama, which had been
destroyed by the rioters, and in re-furnishing the place and entering into
agreements with wholesale dealers for the supply of the stock in trade, and that
the balance Rs. 6,000, when paid, would be applied to stocking the place fully.
The affidavit further stated that the sums paid as compensation were intended to
enable the recipients to establish themselves in their former locations and
start business on the same lines, as the first defendant intended to do, and
that at the discretion of the Government the compensation might be given, not
in cash, but by means of orders on merchants for goods to be supplied to the
traders. The plaintiff filed n
