Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1981%20Vol.1-P262&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:16:00+00:00

Document:
order in question is a final order. There can be a final judgment. in. execution. proceedings.
order is merely wrong is not a sufficient ground for exercising the powers of revision.
coherence in the appellant's case and the preliminary objection that material facts were suppressed is entitled to succeed.
(1) Ibrahim Saibo v. Mansoor 11953) 54 NLR 217.
(2) Marikar v. Dharmapala Unnanse (1934) 36 NLR 201.
(3) Arlis Appuhamy v. Simon (1947) 48 NLR 298.
(5) Usoof v. Nadarajah Chettiar (1957) 58 NLR 436.
(6) Subramaniam Chetty v. Soysa (1923) 25 NLR 344.
(7) Arnolis Fernando v. Selestina. Fernando (192214 CL Rec. 71.
(8) Usoof v. The National Bank of India Ltd. (1958) 60 NLR 381, 383.
(9) Zahir v. Perera (1970) 73 NLR 424.
(11) Krishna Pershad Singh v. Motichand (1913) 40 Cal. 635.
(12) Ramchand Manjimal v. Gower Dhandas AIR 1920 PC 86.
(13) Salaman v. Warner (1891) 1 OB 734.
(14) Bozon v. Altrincham U.D.C. (19031 1 KB 547.
(15) Abdul Rahman v. Cassim & Sons AIR 1933 PC 58.
APPEAL from judgment of the Court of Appeal reported at .11981 j. (2) SLR 29.
of title to and vacant possession of the property he had purchased.
of Marshall and "all those holding under him."
right to take proceedings under section 325, Civil Procedure Code, for a complete and effectual delivery. of possession.
of Marshall. Then he went on to add that.
(a) Muttusamy was collecting a sum of Rs. 1350/- per mensem from him and paying a sum of Rs. 600/- to Marshall.
(b) the appellant was in occupation of the premises with the knowledge and acquiescence of Marshall.
an advance was paid by him to Marshall on 6th February 1979.
appellant in the Court of Appeal or before us, although produced in. the trial court as 2R5.
over to the appellant the management of the business called "Dawalagiri Hotel" carried on byMuttusamyinthesepremises.
This evidence was clearly contradictory in nature.
directed that the judgment-creditor be placed in possession of the premises.
party has been given the right to institute an action to establish his right of title to such property(videsection329).
the matters debated before the Court of Appeal and also before us.
interference will cause a denial of justice or irremediable harm.
not have properly exercised its powers of revision in this matter.
appellant. The same was said of the Magistrate's Court proceedings which have not been produced.
relevant documents along with his petition.
reasons the preliminary objection is entitled to succeed."
am having in mind here not mere formal documents, but material that have a direct bearing on the issues in a case.
regarded as being frivolous or vexatious.
matter will become evident when the facts are carefully examined.
claim. to remain in possession. It is therefore not surprising that the lower courts have rejected the appellant's claim.
claim put forward by the appellant.
lends further credence to this view.
nor fall back on the purported transaction: There is nothing in the appellant's case to help himself out ofthissituation.
were right in their conclusions in rejecting the claim put forward by the appellant.
Arlis Appuhamy v. Siman, 48 N.L.R.298(3)Palaniappa Chettyv.MercantileBankofIndia,43N.L.R.352(4) Usoofv.
National Bank of India Ltd., 60 N. L. R. 381(8) and in someIndiandecisions.IthinkthatthedistinctionwhichMr.
that this appeal is correctly before us and the preliminary objection taken by Mr. Jayewardene fails.
respect of premises bearing assessment No. 19, Galle Road, Bambalapitiya, for ejectment of thedefendantandfordamages.
(a) The premises in suit is governed by the provisions of the Rent Act.
(b) One S. Muttusamy was the tenant of the premises.
(c) He has been placed in possession of the premises by S. Muttusamy.
(e) He was in occupation of the premises with the knowledge and acquiescence of the said Marshall.
direct to Marshall for the month of January 1979.
, and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid as an advance on 6.2.79.
occupation of the premises in suit.
appellant is a tenant or a sub-tenant."
affirmed the order of the District Judge and dismissed the revision application with costs.
such order shall not bar the right of such party to institute an action to establish his right or title to such property"
of his objection he referred to the case of Zahir v. Perera (73 N.L.R. 424)(9). The Court of Appeal rejected the,objection.
was allowed to operate, grave miscarriage of justice.
filed a statement annexing a number of documents so as to present an adequate picture of thedisputebetweentheparties.
arguments centering round the documents A11A and A4 and reference to them was not necessary.
to appeal. The present appeal has thus come to this Court with the leave of the Court of Appeal.
appeal had not come through that channel, the appeal should be rejected.
to the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance.
difference to the nature of the order on the sale.
which dealt finally with the rights of the parties and that an appeal to the Privy Council lay to the judgment-debtor.
no longer live proceedings". I respectfully agree with this statement.
Arlis Appuhamy v. Simon (48 N. L. R. 298) (3) followed the principle laid down in this case.
cannot, in the circumstances, be sustained and is accordingly overruled.
premises, as deposed to by him in evidence, if that was so.
a tenant of the defendant-respondent, had put the petitioner appellant in possession of the premises asfarbackas1975.
petitioner-appellant by notarial agreement No. 182 dated 27th October 1978 (A4). In terms of thesaidnotarialagreements.
presents shall bind the 'parties thereto and their respective heirs, executors and administrators firmly."
petitioner who was holding under them was therefore not affected by such a decree.
determined and decree for ejectment entered against them.
on the death of Muttusamy.
the death of Muttusamy. In affirming the District judge's findings of fact, the. Court . of Appeal has also erred.
question of the said business being carried on in common between Muttusamy and the petitioner-appellant duringthatperiod.
different name in the premises in suit was Muttusamy. But Muttusamy never objected to the new name of the Hotel.
petitioner appellant to be in lawful possession of the premises.
of the premises on his own account is irresistible.
latter's costs in this Court, in the Court of Appeal and in the District Court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.