Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit for the sum found due under the settlement was barred by Section 34 of the Ceylon Civil Procedure Act, and whether the prior disputes had been extinguished by accord and satisfaction under the substituted agreement.
Analysis: The parties had conclusively settled all existing disputes by a substituted arrangement recorded in the receipt, under which the sums admitted due were to be discharged in a specified manner. That arrangement operated as accord and satisfaction, extinguishing the prior rights and replacing them with the new rights created by the settlement. Section 34 was held to be directed to requiring a plaintiff to include the whole of the claim or remedies arising from one cause of action, and not to preventing a suit where the later claim was founded on a distinct and inconsistent cause of action. A claim on the promissory notes and a claim for the amount found due under the settlement were not treated as the same cause of action.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred under Section 34, and the amount sued for was recoverable as part of the sum found due under the settlement. The appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 34 of the Ceylon Civil Procedure Act bars only subsequent claims or remedies arising from the same cause of action, and does not prevent recovery on a distinct settlement-based obligation created by a substituted agreement that extinguishes the earlier rights.