Raman Chetty V. Renganathan Pillai

1927 Present: Dalton and Lyall Grant JJ.

RAMEN CHETTY v. RENGANATHAN PILLAI.

330-D. C. Colombo, 12,931.

Money Lending Ordinance-Pro-note as security for future loans-False statement as to capital sum borrowed-Height to relief-Inadvertence -Ordinance No. 2 of 1918, ss. 2, 10, 13.

A promissory note, given as security for future loans, which contains a false statement in regard to the capital sum actually borrowed, is not enforceable.

Where such a false statement was the result of a deliberate act and was not due to inadvertence, the Court is not empowered to grant relief Tinder section 10 (2) of the Money Lending Ordinance.

Wijesinghe v. Don Girigoris 2 over-ruled.

THE plaintiff sued trip defendants jointly and severally to recover the sum of Rs. 11,O8O alleged to be balance due to him on a promissory note for Rs. 100,000 made by them. The defendants pleaded that no money was paid to them on the note, which was given to the plaintiff as security for future advances. They also pleaded that under section 13 of the Money Lending Ordinance

1 25 L. J. Q. B. 310.  2 27 N. L. R. 342.

the note was " fictitious," and that the ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document