Paliamappar Chettiar V. Amarasena

1943 Present: Soertsz S.P.J. and Keuneman J.

PALIAMAPPAR CHETTIAR, Appellant, and AMARASENA,
Respondent.

106-D. C. Galle, 38,927.

Pawn-Action to recover amount lent-No necessity to tender pawn or pledge- Roman-Dutch law-Pawnbrokers Ordinance (Cap. 75), ss. 3 and 4.

It is not the necessary condition of the right of a pawnee or pledgee to recover the amount lent by him that he should tender the pawn or pledge. A contract of pawn or pledge which comes within the provisions of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance would be governed not solely by the provisions of the Ordinance but by those provisions to the extent to which they modify the Roman-Dutch law.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Galle.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him Ivor Misso), for plaintiff, appellant.

G. P. J. Kurukulasuriya (with him H. W. Jayewardene), for defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 21, 1943. SOERTSZ S.P.J.-

The plaintiff, a licensed pawnbroker, says that, on July 21, 1941, the defendant borrowed from him Rs. 850, giving him certain articles of jewellery in pawn, and that similarly, he borrowed Rs. 225 on August 30, 1941, and on both these transac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document