Thomas Et Al., V. Fernando

1956 Present : Weerasooriya, J., and Sansoni, J.

D. THOMAS et al., Appellants, and D. R. FERNANDO,
Respondent

S. C. 190-D. C. Colombo, 6,646/L

Evidence Ordinance, s. 92-Deed of sale-Parol evidence to contradict its terms relating to the consideration-Admissibility.

The consideration is an essential term in a contract of sale. Section 92 of the Evidence Ordinance debars a party to the deed of sale from adducing parol evidence to prove that the consideration for the deed was not money and therefore the deed was not a sale but represented an entirely different transaction.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

H. A. Koattegoda, with P. Ranasinghe, for the defendants appellants.

C. V. Ranawake, with C. Wickremenayake, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 3, 1956. SANSONI, J.-

The plaintiff sued three defendants in this action for a declaration of title to four lands, damages for alleged wrongful possession of those lands by the defendants, and for ejectment. He based his claim on a deed dated 23rd February 1952 by which their owner Venjo Fernando conveyed them to him. That deed purports to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document