Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Ana Lana Muttu v. Kana Nana Chu Na, 1881

[mortgage]

Ana Lana Muttu v. Kana Nana Chu Na


Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
29 April 1881
Source: The Times, 20 April, 1881

LAW REPORT, April 29.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
(Present - Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Robert Collier, Sir Richard Couch, and Sir Arthur Hobhouse.)
ANA LANA MUTTU v. KANA NANA CHU NA AND ANOTHER.
  This was an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon of the 4th of March, 18y79, reversing a decree of the District Court of Kandy.
  Mr. J. D. Mayne was counsel for the appellant; Mr. Bompas, Q.C., and Mr. Cromwell-White appeared for the respondent.
  This suit was brought by the respondent to enforce his rights  as mortgagee of certain property at Dumbere against the appellant, who was in possession of the mortgaged premises. The District Court found that the mortgage was not proved and that it was barred by lapse of time. The decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
  The case was unfinished when their Lordships rose for the day, and will be resumed tomorrow.

Source: The Times, 21 April, 1882


The suit was brought by the respondents to enforce the right of mortgagees of certain property in the district of Dumbere in Ceylon against the appellant, who was in possession of the mortgaged property. The District Court found that the mortgage sued upon was not proved, and that, in any event, it was barred by lapse of time, and moreover, that the appellant was holding under one Supermanien to whom, subsequently, at the date of the alleged mortgage, all the title to the land had passed by the consent of one of the respondents, who was the mortgagor. That decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, which held that the respondent in question still continued to be the owner of the land sued for, subject to the mortgage, and that the first respondent, Kana Nana, had sufficiently made out his right to enforce the mortgage.
  Their Lordships, at the close of the arguments, reserved judgment.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School