Wijeyesinghe V. Don Girigoris

1926 Present: Jayewardene A.J.

WIJEYSINGHE v. DON GIRIGORIS.

210-C. R. Colombo, 13,344.

    Money Lending Ordinance-Promissory note-Sum borrowed wrongly stated-Action on the note-Ordinance No. 2 of 1918, ss. 10 and 13.

A promissory note in which- the sum borrowed is wrongly stated is not void, and an action can be brought on such note.

In such a case the court has power under section 2, sub-sections (1) and (2), of the Money Lending Ordinance to ascertain what sum was actually borrowed and is due from the debtor to the creditor.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Colombo. The plaintiff as payee sued the defendant, the maker of a promissory note to recover a sum of Rs. 220. The note bore on the margin the particulars required by section 10 of the

Money Lending Ordinance, No. 2 of 1918. The defence was that the sum actually borrowed on the note was only Rs. 80. The learned Commissioner held that the plaintiff had lent only a sum of Rs. 80, as stated by the defendant, and dismissed his action altogether.

S. J. V. Chelvanayagam, for plaintiff, appellant.-On a question of fact, the learned Commissioner has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document