Sockalingam Chettiar V. Ramanayake Et Al.,

[N THE PRIVY COUNCIL.]

1936 Present : Lord Maugham, Lord Salvesen, and
Sir Lancelot Sanderson.

SOCKALINGAM CHETTIAR v. RAMANAYAKE et al.

Mortgage bond-Security for loan-Fictitious promissory notes given-Action on bond-Loan recoverable-Notes inadmissible in evidence-Money Lending Ordinance, No. 2 of 1918. ss. 2. 10. and 14.

Where a mortgage bond was entered into to secure a loan in respect of which promissory notes, which were " fictitious " within the meaning of section 14 of the Money Lending Ordinance, were given,-

Held, that an action may be maintained on the bond to recover the loan, notwithstanding the provisions of section 10 of the Money Lending Ordinance.

Held, further, that the Court has power under section 2 of the Money Lending Ordinance to reopen the transaction and to take an account between the parties.

The fictitious promissory notes are not admissible in evidence to prove the loan.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court [1 35 N. L. R. 33.]

R. M. Montgomery K. C. (with him Hallett, K. C., and L. M. de Silva, K. C.), for appellants. Chinnadurai and Lady Chatterjee, for the respondents.

Novem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document