1950 Present: Basnayake J, and Pulle J,

SUPPIAH et al, Appellants, and SITUNAYAKE, Respondent

S. C. 165.-D. C, Kandy, 2,413
 

Contract-Notarial agreement for sale and purchase of land-Provision for duration of three months only-Evidence of subsequent oral " extensions " of time limit- Inadmissible-Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 11), s. 92, proviso (4)-Prevention of Frauds Ordinance (Cap. 57), s. 2.

Where a notarially attested agreement relating to the purchase and sale of land provided that the agreement should be null and void at the expiration of three months from the date of its execution-

Held, that it was not open to a party, either under section 92 or any other provision of the Evidence Ordinance, to prove a subsequent oral agreement to keep the written agreement alive beyond the stipulated period of three months. The written agreement could be revived only by another writing attested by a notary as required by section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kandy.

F. A. Hayley, K.C. with S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, K.C., N. Kurnarasingham and T. Arulanantham, for the plaintiffs appe