Kadija Umma V. Mohamed Sulaiman

1939 Present: Abrahams C. J., Hearne and Keuneman JJ.

KADIJA UMMA v. MOHAMED SULAIMAN.

8-D. C. Colombo, 25,701.

Privy Council-Application for final leave to appeal-Security in landed property-Bond hypothecating land attested before Registrar-Validity of bond-Ordinance No. 31 of 1909, Schedule I, Rule 3 (a).

Where, in an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, the appellant was permitted to give security in landed property, the bond hypothecating the land must comply with the requirements of section 2 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1840 or of Ordinance No. 17 of 1852.

Held, further, that the Supreme Court had' no power to grant relief to the appellant to enter into a proper bond after the expiration of the period except in accordance with the terms of Rule 3 (a) of the First Schedule of Ordinance No. 31 of 1909.

Queen's Advocate v. Thamba Pulle (3 Lorensz 303) distinguished; Mohamadu Tamby v. Pathumma (1 C. L. Rec. 26) not followed.

THIS was an application for final leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The appellants were permitted to give security for respondents' costs in landed property. Objection was taken b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document