THOMSON CJ These appeals concern the distribution of the estate of one Loh Toh Met who died at Johore Bahru on 21st July, 1958.

The deceased was survived by three women with each of whom he had entered into a relationship of a connubial nature in accordance with Chinese custom which for convenience I shall call a Chinese marriage. These were Madam Kong with whom the Chinese marriage was contracted in Singapore in 1932, Madam Yong with whom the Chinese marriage was contracted in Johore in 1940 and Madam Chan with whom the Chinese marriage was contracted in Johore some time between 1953 and the death of the deceased. All of these women are parties to the present proceedings. The deceased was also survived by his father Loh Peng Heng who is also a party to the proceedings and by eleven children. Of these, six named Anthony, Philomena, Charlie, Daniel, Emmanuel and Rosa are the natural children of the deceased by Madam Yong, all born in wedlock, one by name Francis is the natural son of the deceased by Madam Chan, born in wedlock, and four by name Mary, Lucy. Annie and Bartholomew were adopted by the deceased and one or other of his wives at various times.

The deceased died intestate, and it is common ground that at the time of his death his domicile was in the State of Johore. The distribution of the whole of his estate, movable and immovable, thus falls to be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Distribution Ordinance (No.1 of 1958) which came into force on 1st May, 1958.

By section 6(1)(ii) and (iii) of that Ordinance where a man dies intestate leaving a wife and issue, [frac13] of the estate goes to the surviving wife and the balance goes to the issue to be held on the statutory trusts set out in section 7. By Section 3 "issue" is defined as including children and the descendants of deceased children and the definition of "children" includes legitimate children and, by reason of section 29 of the Adoption Ordinance, 1952, children adopted under the provisions of that Ordinance but excludes children adopted otherwise than under the provisions of that Ordinance. By section 6(2) if the intestate "be permitted by his personal law a plurality of wives" and leaves surviving him more wives than one these wives are to share among themselves equally the widows share as defined by section 6(1)(ii). By section 6(1)(iv) where the intestate leaves no widow and no issue then the estate goes in the first place to any surviving parent or parents.

After the death of Loh Toh Met, Madam Kong and Madam Chan applied for Letters of Administration to his estate and in their petition set out themselves, Madam Yong, all the natural children and all the adopted children who have been enumerated as being at the time of his death the only next-of-kin of the deceased. They did not, however, differentiate between the adopted children and the natural children. Madam Yong lodged a caveat to the petition and an order was then made that an issue be tried "to determine as to who are the next-of-kin and issue who are entitled as beneficiaries" in the estate of the deceased. Madam Yong then filed a defence which was to the effect that although Madam Kong and herself had been wives of the deceased Madam Chan had not been his wife and that certain of the children were not natural children but adopted children.

At a later stage Loh Peng Heng, the father of the deceased, also filed a caveat and on being joined as a second defendant in the probate suit pleaded in effect that none of the widows was a lawful widow and none of the children were legitimate children on the ground that the deceased was a person professing the Christian religion and had not married Madam Kong in accordance with the Christian Marriage Ordinance of the then Straits Settlements and had not married Madam Yong or Madam Chan in accordance with the Christian Marriage Enactment of the State of Johore.

In the event Neal J. held that