Back
1924 Supreme(SC) 45
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD DUNEDIN, LORD CARSON, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
MAUNG DWE - Appellant
Versus
KHOO HAUNG SHEIN - Respondents
On appeal from the Chief Court of Lower Burma.
Decided On : Oct. 21. 1924.
Solicitors for appellants:Henry Hilbery & Son. Solicitor for respondents: A. M. Bramall.
Under Burmese Buddhist Law, step-children are considered descendants and exclude collateral heirs. The existence of a filial bond is not a condition precedent for inheritance, although a proven breach of filial duty may serve as a disqualification.
Headnote:(A) Burmese Buddhist Law - Succession and Inheritance - Rights of step-children and step-grandchildren - Step-children are regarded as heirs without limitation, except in the case of ancestral property, and even then, they are granted a share provided the step-parent has lived to have a vested interest in it - Step-children are considered descendants and therefore oust collateral blood relations, as property under Buddhist law descends before it ascends.
(B) Filial Bond - Condition for inheritance vs. Ground for disqualification - Proof of a filial bond, such as living with the deceased or performing funeral rites, is not a condition precedent to the right of inheritance - While conduct, such as disobedience or idleness, can operate as a disqualification of the right, it is not a necessary qualification to obtain the right - Mere separate residence does not by itself prove or set up an inference of a breach of filial relations sufficient to deprive a child of their rights.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose over the succession of the separate property of a deceased woman and her share in her mother's estate. The claimants were the stepson and step-grandchildren of the deceased, while the opponents were the deceased's own brother and sister. The opponents contended that the step-descendants were not entitled to inherit because they had not lived with the deceased nor performed her funeral rites, thereby lacking the necessary filial bond.
Findings of Court:
The court found that step-children are recognized as heirs and descendants under the applicable law. The absence of cohabitation and the failure to conduct funeral ceremonies, particularly when the claimants were minors, did not constitute a forfeiture of inheritance rights.
Issues: Whether step-children and step-grandchildren are entitled to inherit the estate of a step-parent to the exclusion of collateral blood relations, and whether the existence of a filial bond is a necessary qualification for such inheritance.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Buddhist law, step-children are treated as descendants and thus exclude collaterals. The filial bond is not a prerequisite for the right to inherit; rather, a proven breach of filial duty acts as a disqualification. Separate residence does not automatically imply a breach of filial relations.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
succession
-
burmese buddhist law
- step-children's inheritance
- collateral heirs
- filial duty and disqualification
-
burmese buddhist law
-
succession
Judgement
Appeal (No. 84 of 1923) from a decree {January 30, 1922) of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, reversing a decree (December 6, 1920) of the Additional District Judge of Tavoy.
The suit was instituted by the present respondents, Nos. 1 to 4, minors suing by their guardian, against the appellants and respondent No. 5, who was joined pro forma. The plaintiffs by their plaint alleged that Ma Shwe Kin was the third wife and surviving widow of one Khoo Shwe Goon deceased ; as step-grandchildren of Ma Shwe Kin they claimed administration of her estate, on the basis that as step-grandchildren they were entitled to her estate jointly with respondent No. 5, her stepson. The appellants were sued as having intermeddled with, and being in possession of, the estate.
The material facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Upon the grounds stated in that judgment the Additional District Judge at Tavoy dismissed the suit, but upon appeal the Chief Court made a decree for administration, on the basis that the plaintiffs jointly with defendant No. 5 were entitled to the whole of Ma Shwe Kins separate estate, and to one-half of her undivided share in the estate of her deceased mother.
1924. July 29, 30. Harney K.C. and R. L. Parry for the appellants. Under Burmese Buddhist law a step-child or step-grandchild does not inherit unless the filial bond is shown to have existed with the step-parent or step-grandparent. That bond did not exist in this case, as the respondents did not live with the deceased, or bury her upon her death. The judgment in Ma Gun Bon v. Maung Po Kywe (2
U. B. Rulings ( 1897- 1901), 66.), which was relied on below, shows that the decision applies only where the filial bond exists. Further, the property in that case was property which had been inherited by the deceased from her husband. The same observations apply to Maung Sein Thwe v. Ma Shwe Yi. (10 L. B. Rulings, 396.) [Reference was made also to Ma Oungs Burman Buddhist Law of Succession and Inheritance ( 1919), pp. 198, 254, 259, 260.]
Sanders for the respondents 1 to 4. The dhammathat Maungye expressly lays down the rights of step-children see U Gaungs Digest, s. 295. Here, as in the case there discussed, the property had not become part of the spouses community of property. That dhammathat should be applied in this case, as no other dhammathat raising any relevant exception has been referred to Mah Nhin Bwin v. U Shwe Gone (( 1914) L. R. 41 I. A. 126.); Ma Thaung v. Ma Than . (( 1923) L. R. 511. A. 1.) It is only by a partition upon remarriage, such as took place in the case last cited, that the rights of the step-children are affected. Breach of the filial bond operates as forfeiture but proof of its existence is not a condition to the right of inheritance see Chan Toon Leading Cases, p. 131. In the present case there was no pleading nor issue as to the filial bond. R. L. Parry replied.
Oct. 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD DUNEDIN. This is the case of a disputed succession to the property of a lady named Ma Shwe Kin, a Chinese Buddhist living in Tavoy, who was the third wife and the widow of Khoo Shwe Goon. Khoo Shwe Goon was first married to Ma Lin, and by her he had a son now deceased and another son Khoo Ping Hoe, one of the respondents in the appeal. Ma Lin died and Goon married Ma In, by whom he had a son Khoo Ping Kyan, now deceased. Khoo Ping Kyan married and had three sons and a daughter, who are the other respondents. Ma In died, and after some years Goon married his deceased wifes sister Ma Shwe Kin. Goon died in 1917 before his third wife, who died in 1919. He disposed of his own property by will.
Ma Shwe Kin died in 1919 possessed of considerable pro perty, which was her own. She was also entitled to a share of the succession of her mother Pwa Zo. Ma Shwe Kan was survived by a brother and married sister. This brother, the sister and her husband are the appellants in the present case. Originally a question wa
