Panna Alliar V. Lebbe Et Al.,

Present: Jayewardene A.J.

PANNA ALLIAR v. LEBBE et al.

157-C. R. Anuradhapura, 13,420.

Unlawful arrest-Money paid to obtain release-Action maintainable.

An action may be maintained to recover money paid to obtain one's release from illegal arrest and detention.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of requests, Anuradhapura. The plaintiff, a Moorish trader, sued the defendants for damages for false imprisonment and for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 37.50 paid to the first and second defendants, who are headmen, to obtain his release from unlawful arrest and detention by them on a false charge of the theft of a bull belonging to the third defendant laid against the plaintiff. The learned Commissioner held that the defendants had falsely imprisoned the plaintiff and certain others, and had released them on the payment of a sum of money by each of them, viz., Rs. 37.50, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. It was contended in appeal that even if such sum of money was paid to the defendant, it could not be recovered, as it was paid in pursuance of an unlawful agreement-an agreement void as being against public policy.

Drieberg, K.C. (with him H. V. Perera), for defendants, appellants.

James Joseph, for plaintiff, respondent.

September 9, 1924. Jayewardene A.J.-

In this case the defendants who have been condemned to pay damages to the plaintiff for false imprisonment and to return the money paid to them to obtain his release from imprisonment appeal against the judgment. The plaintiff is a Moorish villager from Puttur, a remote village in the North-Central Province. The first and second defendants are headmen, the second of the plaintiff's village, and the other of an adjoining village. The third defendant is a villager who at this time had lost a bull. The case for the plaintiff is that the first and second defendants, on the complaint of the third defendant that he had lost a bull, came to his residing land to make inquiries. Some beef was found in the house of the plaintiff and in those of five others. They explained that the beef was the flesh of a bull belonging to Uduma Lebbe which he had slaughtered. This was found to be so on inquiry. The headmen arrested the plaintiff and the others in whose houses beef was found, and detained

them in custody that night at the house of the second defendant. Next morning, the defendants started to take them to Topawewa. But on the way the defendants demanded Rs. 500 to release them. The plaintiff and his companions offered to pay Rs. 300 which the defendants agreed to accept. Then the party returned to the village, and the plaintiff and the others raised money on six promissory notes for Rs. 40 each: Each of them paid Rs. 37.50 to the headmen, and they were released. The third defendant's bull was discovered soon after. The defendants' case is that they came to the village and held an inquiry, and as the beef found in the houses of the suspected thieves was proved to be that of Uduma Lebbe's bull, they were released. They denied having kept the plaintiff and the others in custody during the night, or having received any money from the person released. The others who were arrested and made to pay for their release have also brought actions against the defendants. The plaintiff has given evidence in support of his case, and has called three of the persons who were arrested detained, and made to pay for their release to corroborate him. He also called one Saibu who knew all the facts and who had collected the money paid to the first defendant, and Mohideen Bawa from whom the plaintiff and the others borrowed money. He says that the plaintiff told him at the time that the money was wanted to pay the first defendant to secure their release from arrest. Some of the notes have been produced. They are in the handwriting of the third defendant, and are witnessed to by the second defendant. I accept the learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document