Back
MUTHUKUDA v. SUMANAWATHIE
NLR65V205
1962 Present :
Weerasooriya, S. P. J., and H. N. G. Fernando, J.
MUTHUKUDA, Appellant, and SUMANAWATHIE, Respondent
S. C. 556-D. C. Kalutara, 31758
Breach of
promise of marriage-Promise in writing-Sufficiency of nekath paper- Acceptance
of promise-Writing not necessary-Injuria suffered by plaintiff- Bight of
plaintiff to sue ex delicto-Marriage Registration Ordinance, s. 19 (3).
The proviso to section 19 (3) of the Marriage Registration Ordinance reads as
follows :-
" No action shall lie for the recovery of damages for breach of promise of
marriage, unless such promise of marriage shall have been made in writing. "
Held, that proof of writing is necessary only in respect of the
promise of marriage and not in respect of the acceptance of the promise.
Acceptance may be made by the conduct of the parties and by a definite
understanding between them that a marriage is to take place.
Plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of damages on two causes of
action. The first cause of action was based on a breach of promise to marry. The
second cause of action was based on injuria suffered by the plaintiff by reason
of the failure of the defendant to attend the poruwa ceremony when the plaintiff
and a large number of guests were awaiting the arrival of the defendant.
The only document relied on by the plaintiff as constituting a promise of
marriage in writing was the nekath paper which was a memorandum of the
astrologically auspicious times associated with the wedding fixed to take place
on a fixed day between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was written in the
first person, the defendant being mentioned by name as the author of it.
Held, (i) that the nekath paper constituted a promise in writing
by the defendant to the plaintiff.
(ii) that it was not necessary to prove that the promise was accepted in writing
by the plaintiff. Acceptance could be inferred from the conduct of the parties.
(iii) that the injuria suffered by the plaintiff gave rise to a cause of action ex delicto even had there been no breach of promise and the
defendant continued thereafter to be ready to marry the plaintiff.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the District Court, Kalutara.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q. C., with C. P. Fernando, for defendant-appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, Q. C., with Nimal Senanayake, for plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 21, 1962.
WEERASOORIYA, S. P. J.-
The plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant on two causes of action.
The first cause of action was that the defendant " by his writings and more
specially by his letter dated 10.9.56 " promised to marry the plaintiff, that
after the parties had given the statutory notice of marriage and exchanged
rings, and cash Rs. 5,000 had been paid to the defendant as dowry by the
plaintiff's father, the defendant maliciously, fraudulently and with intent to
disgrace the plaintiff failed to attend the poruwa ceremony and the office of
the Registrar of Marriages on the 7th November, 1956, for which date the wedding
was fixed, and otherwise failed and neglected, and by his conduct unequivocally
refused, to marry the plaintiff. On this cause of action the plaintiff claimed a
sum of Rs. 2,500 as damages for breach of promise to marry. The second cause of
action was that on the strength of the promise to marry and in the presence of a
large number of invited guests, the plaintiff on the 7th November, 1956, attired
in her bridal clothes and attended by friends and relations awaited the arrival
of the defendant, who maliciously and without any cause whatsoever failed and
neglected to attend the poruwa ceremony and the office of the Registrar of
Marriages, with the result that the plaintiff suffered great pain of mind,
humiliation and disgrace in the eyes of her friends and relations and the
public, and her chances of marriage were completely blasted. On this cause of
action the plaintiff claimed a sum
