Ranhami V. Menik Etana

Present : Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice, and
Mr. Justice Wendt.

RANHAMI v. MENIK ETANA.

D. C, Kandy, 17,396.

Kandyan Law-Rights of illegitimate children-acquired property- Rights of mother and brother and sisters.

    Where a Kandyan died intestate leaving him surviving his mother, and brother and sisters, and an illegitimate child,-
    Held, that the illegitimate child was entitled to succeed to the intestate's acquired property in preference to intestate's mother and brother and sisters, subject to the life interest of the widow if any.

    Judgment in review in Re the Estate of Sundara (1) followed.

    THE facts of the case are fully set out in the following judgment of the District Judge (J. H. de Saram, Esq.): -

    " This is a case involving a question of Kandyan Law as to the right of an illegitimate child to succeed to her father's acquired property. The lands in question belonged to Wattegedara Appu Naide, to whom they were gifted by his adoptive father and mother, his uncle, and aunt. He died a short time ago, leaving, as is alleged, an estate below the value of Rs.1,000. The value of the estate is not in issue. He has no legitimate issue. The first defendant, who died after the institution of this action, is his mother; the second

Foot Notes:

(1) (1907) 10 N. L. R. 129.

defendant is, his brother; and the third, fourth, and fifth defendants are his sisters. The defendants deny that the plaintiff is the child of Appu Naide. The evidence as to the plaintiff's paternity is all one way. I hold it well proved that she is the illegitimate child of Appu Naide. The property being Appu Naide's acquired property, the question is, Who is entitled to the dominium of it? The illegitimate child, or the intestate's brother and sisters? I can only repeat what I have said in the action No. 15,657 of this Court, in which I have to-day pronounced judgment. The question here involved is the same as in that action.

    " The right of a near relation, such as a sister, to succeed to the deceased's acquired property in preference to an illegitimate child was recognized by the. Pull Court in Be the Estate of Sundara, deceased (1). In the present case there is a brother as well as sisters. A brother stands on the same footing as a sister. They are all stumbling blocks to the plaintiff succeeding.

    " There is no widow in this case, as there was in the case of Mahat-maya v. Banda (2). When Lawrie A.C.-J. said in that case that it is well-established Kandyan Law that, provided there be no legitimate children and no widow, illegitimate children succeed to the whole of the acquired property of the father, I think he meant that the rights of the illegitimate children remain in abeyance during the lifetime of the widow. That must be so, for His Lordship, with his knowledge of Kandyan Law, that a widow's rights are those of a life renter only, could not possibly have meant that the widow has an absolute right, and would exclude illegitimate children, when legitimate children, who have a permanent right, could not exclude them. Adopting this suggestion, His Lordship's judgment is quite reconcilable with previous judgments. .As I said in the action No. 15,657, I respectfully venture on the expression of this suggestion because of

 what was stated at the hearing of that action regarding His Lordship's judgment.

    "It is good Kandyan Law that when a deceased father left both legitimate and illegitimate children, the latter are entitled only to one-half of the acquired property. [Niti Nigh pp. 15, 17, and 108, D. C, Kandy, 721 (3)]. By illegitimate children I mean only children, as in the present case, born by a woman who was living with a man as his wife, and not the issue of a casual or secret connection. In the action No. 721 (3) of this Court referred to by Lawrie A.C.J., the widow and legitimate child were the plaintiffs, and the illegitimate child

Click Here to Read the rest of this document