Jayasinghe V. Ramanathan Chettiar

1948     Present : Canekeratne and Nagalingam JJ.

JAYASINGHE, Appellant, and RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR, Respondent

S. C. 351-D. C. Colombo, 910

Money Lending Ordinance-Books of account-Loan of 1,500 rupees-Entry showng debt by defendant for 750 rupees-Non-compliance with Ordinance-Inadvertence-Section 8.

Plaintiff, a money lender, lent to the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,500. In the book of account, however, the entry made by the plaintiff showed only a debit of Rs. 750 against the defendant, his case being that the other Rs. 750 had been contributed by some other firm although the bond was in his name.

Held, that the plaintiff had not kept proper books of account and that the facts disclosed no inadvertence within the meaning of section 8 of the Money Lending Ordinance.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Colombo.

N. E. Weerasooria, K.C., with S. W. Jayasuriya, for defendant appellant.

F. A. Hayley, K.C., with C. Renganathan, for plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

September 3, 1948. NAGALINGAM J.-

This appeal involves a short point of law under the Money Lending Ordinance. The plaintiff who is admittedly a money lender and has been carrying on the business of money lending for a number of years sues the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,485.88, being the principal and interest alleged to be due upon a mortgage bond dated August 10, 1939, and executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's case is that he lent a sum of Rs. 1,500 upon the mortgage bond sued upon, while the defendants' case is that only a sum of Rs. 750 was received by them. The learned Judge has rejected the defence on this point and has held with the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 1,500 was in fact lent to the defendants. The defendants, however, take the plea that the plaintiff being a money lender and being under an obligation by virtue of section 8 of the Money Lending. Ordinance to keep a regular account of the loan in a proper book of account, has failed to do so, and that he is thereby incapacitated from maintaining an action in respect of the loan.

The plaintiff in fact has kept proper books of account which fully comply with the requirements of the Ordinance. In the books of account,

however, the entry made by the plaintiff shows only a debit of Rs. 750 against the defendants and the extract from his books of account shows that the account of the plaintiff with the defendants is in regard to. the sum of Rs. 750 and not in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,500 alleged to have been lent as set out in the mortgage bond.

Mr. Hayley on behalf of the plaintiff contended that the loan of Rs. 1,500 need not necessarily appear under any particular column but that it would be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance if the sum lent is written down on some page in the book of account. I do not think anybody would quarrel with this contention. There is certainly no magic in writing the particulars of a loan under a special heading and under a particular column, for one can well conceive of a Chinaman who carries on the business of m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document