Lord Shaw -

This is an appeal raising the question of the validity of a Singhalese marriage. A petition was presented by the respondents in the District Court of Tangalla in Ceylon for letters of administration of the estate of one, who for short, may be called Don Andris de Silva. Don Andris died on the 1st September 1921. The application was made, upon the 14th December of that year, by Singho Appu, the son-in-law of the deceased Don Andris. Don Andris died intestate.

The family history of Don Andris was that he had been regularly married in 1885, having as issue the daughter who, through her husband Singho Appu, now claims his whole estate. This first wife died in May 1900.

Then in 1901, and for a course of twenty years until 1921, when Don Andris died, the proved family history was as follows :

He married one Balahamy, with the procession, the giving of gifts and other ceremonials familiar to the law of Ceylon. There was, however, one omission namely, that the marriage was not registered, and in that sense the marriage was irregular. But registration, however important, was not by law essential. Don Andris and she lived together as apparently man and wife for these twenty years. During that period she bore him nine children, of whom eight are still alive. The father and mother and children all lived together as one family. At the time of his death she and the eight surviving children were living in the family house.

By the law of intestate succession in Ceylon, the estate of the deceased would have been divided, one half to his widow and the other half equally among the nine children, namely, her eight, and the respondent, the child of the first marriage.

The respondents claim that this law of succession operates.

The appellants, however - Singho Appu and his wife - deny to the respondents any such right of succession. They maintain that Balahamy was not the wife of Don Andris, and that all her children were illegitimate. They accordingly claim that Dinohamy succeeded to the whole estate.

In the circumstances mentioned it is not to be wondered at that, when, on the 14th December 1921, letters of administration were granted to the appellant, Singho Appu, as son-in-law of the deceased and husband of Dinohamy, the daughter by the first marriage, he considered it expedient to do something to fortify a claim to the estate. For the result of success in his application would be that the appellants would be able to disinherit and eject from the family home the first respondent and her eight children. A deed, purporting to be a deed of agreement, was accordingly prepared. It was made ready by the 18th December namely, four days after letters of administration ; and it was executed on the 23rd December.

It is sufficient to say of that deed that the estate was declared wholly to belong to appellant Dinohamy, the daughter of the first marriage. A certain portion of the property, however - about one half - was to be given by her as a donation to the eight children and the deed entirely disinherits their mother, who, as the widow of Don Andris, would have succeeded to the other half. It not only, however, does this, but it further states that Don Andris had "lived with the said . . . Balahamy as his mistress and not having legally married her, eight children were born to them," She is accordingly, as stated, entirely disinherited by this alleged agreement.

There are only two real questions in the case :

First, was Balahamy married according to the law of Ceylon to Don Andris ?

Secondly, are her or her children's rights affected by the deed of agreement ?

The strength of the appellants' case - there being a total conflict between the witnesses on the one side and those on the other - is that the District Judge believed the appellants' witnesses. On the other hand, the two Judges of the Supreme Court of Ceylon, by their judgment dated the 18th December 1925, reversed the District Court's judgment, and on both the points in issue, differed from the le