Present: The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice,
and Mr. Justice Grenier.

RANHOTIA v. BILINDA et at.

C, Kandy, 18, 662.

Kandyan Law-Acquired property-Rights of father and brother of deceased.

According to Kandyan Law, where a person dies unmarried, childless, and intestate, his acquired property devolves on his father to the exclusion of his brother.

ACTION ret vindicatio. The facts are stated in the following judgment of the District Judge (F. R. Dias, Esq. ) (May 18, 1908):

" The plaintiff in this action is claiming title to a half share of a certain land, alleging title as sole heir-at-law of his brother Singa, who died unmarried and intestate in 1887. The defendants and added parties are the step-mother and step-brother of the plaintiff Admittedly, the plaintiff has never had a day's possession of this land, and his right entirely depends on the answer to the question whether he, as the only brother of the owner Singa, was under the Kandyan Law his heir-at-law to the exclusion of his father Sarana.

'' The facts of the case are these. One K. Sarana was first married to a woman named Singu, by whom he had two children, Singa and the plaintiff. In 1878 this land was purchased under the deed P1 in the joint names of Sarana and Singa (father and son), so that each became entitled to a half. Singa died in 1887, his mother Singu having predeceased him, and the father Sarana possessed the entire land and dealt with it as his own. After Singu's death Sarana married the first defendant, by whom he had three children, the second defendant and the two added parties. In 1893 Sarana leased the whole and in perpetuity to one Ukkuwa, and after passing through two or three other hands, the first and second defendants took over an assignment of that lease in 1901, and have been in possession ever since. It will thus be seen that the rights claimed by the first and second defendants are not derived by them as heirs-at-law of Sarana, but as successors in title to his lease.

" The question which arises on these facts is, whether Sarana was entitled to deal with the whole land as his own after the death of Ma son Singa in 1887. In my opinion he was. According to Armour's Kandyan Law, pp. 88, 89, the mother is heiress to the acquired property of all kinds left by a. child who dies unmarried, childless, and intestate, and such property is entirely at her disposal, and if

the mother had died previous to the demise of her child, then the father will be entitled to the reversion of the deceased child's acquired property.

" The plaintiff's counsel cited what appears to be a contrary view of the Kandyan Law on this point appearing in page 344, section 96, of Marshall's Judgments (Sower's Digest, p. 13), where it is said that if a person die childless, but leaving parents, brothers, and sisters, the property which the deceased received from his parents revert to them respectively, and his acquired property, whether land, cattle, or goods, also goes to his parents, but only the usufruct of it.

" These opinions are undoubtedly in conflict, and for the reasons given by Layard C. J. in T. Sangi v. T. Mohotta, 1 I prefer to follow the opinion of Armour in preference to that of Sawer or Marshall. Hence in that view of the law I must hold that on Singa's death in 1887 (his mother having predeceased him) his father Sarana became solely entitled to this land, which was acquired property, to the exclusion of the plaintiff.

"On the question of prescription, too, that has been raised, the plaintiff must fail. He brought this action in August, 1907, and alleges in his plaint that he was a minor till ten years previously, that is, till 1897. This is, however, proved to be not true, for he was married in 1894 at the age of twenty-three years. His cause of action is therefore clearly prescribed, as it is admitted that Sarana's lessees and their assignees have been in continuous possession ever since Oc