Sockalingam Chettiar Et Al. V. Ramanayake Et Al.,

1933 Present: Dalton A.C.J. and Koch A.J.

SOCKALINGAM CHETTIAR et al. v. RAMANAYAKE et al.

59 (Inty.)- D. C. Colombo, 43,649.

Promissory note-Mortgage bond to secure future advances of money-Money lent on promissory notes-Notes fictitious and unenforceable-Bond unenforceable-Money Lending Ordinance, No. 2 of 1918, ss. 10, 13, and 14.

Plaintiffs sued on a mortgage bond, which was entered into by the defendant to secure loans given to him by the plaintiffs from time to time on promissory notes, which did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of the Money Lending Ordinance.

Held, that the bond was unenforceable to the extent of the money lent on the promissory notes.

THE plaintiffs brought this action on a mortgage bond No. 515 of July 28, 1928, to recover from the first defendant the sum of Rs. 129,415.87 alleged to be due to them on money lent on promissory notes and an I. O. U. The second plaintiff is an assignee of one of the original lenders. The second and third defendants were joined as puisne encumbrancers. The bond sets out that the first defendant had applied for loans from plaintiffs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document