John Appuhamy V. William Appuhamy

1937   Present: Moseley J. and Fernando A J.

JOHN APPUHAMY v. WILLIAM APPUHAMY

 282-D.C. Colombo, 2,886

Bond-Action on mortgage bond which is void-Right to recover on personal covenant-Bond conditioned' for the payment of money-Prescription- Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, s. 6. An action may be maintained upon the personal covenant to pay

money contained in a mortgage bond, which is void for the reason that it was executed pending a partition action.
Such a bond is one conditioned for the payment of money within the meaning of section 6 of the Prescription Ordinance.

Sidambaram Chetty v. Jayawardana (4 Tambyah 85) and Tissero v. Tissera (2 N. L. R. 238) followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.

L. A. Rajapakse, for plaintiff, appellant.

M. C. Abeyewardene, for defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv- vult.

February 10, 1937. MOSELEY J.-

By a mortgage bond, dated February 21, 1929, the defendant mortgaged a certain share of land which was at the time the subject of a partition action. Action was filed on the bond on March 5, 1935. The defence was that by virtue of section 17 of the Partition Ordinance, No. 10

Click Here to Read the rest of this document