Nagaratnam V. Muttutamby Et Al.,

Present  : Ennis J. and Shaw J.   1915.

NAGARATNAM v. MUTTUTAMBY et al.

196-D. C. Jaffna, 9,651.

Tesawalamai-Inheritance-Property inherited by grandson (daughter's son) on death of grandfather-Grandson dying issueless-Do both uncles and aunts inherit the property of grandson ?

A died leaving him surviving two sons B and C, a daughter D, and a grandson E (by a deceased daughter).

Held, that under the Tesawalamai the property which devolved on E on the death of A was inherited on the death of E issueless equally by 6, C, and D, and not by D alone.

THE facts are set out in the judgment of the learned District Judge (M. S. Sreshta, Esq.):-

It is common ground (vide the pleadings and the admissions on the date of trial) that the land originally belonged to one Manikavasagar, who died in 1876 leaving a widow, Mannipillai, who died on October 10, 1686. Manikavasagar had two daughters, Aminipillai and Parupathypathinipillai, and two sons, Kanapathipillai and Ponnambalam. Aminipillai predeceased Manikavasagar, leaving a son, Theivanathan, who died in 1898. Ponnambalam died on September 20, 1895, leaving a daughter, Nagaratnam, who is the plaintiff, and who was a minor when Mannipillai died and attained majority in 1907. Nagaratnam is married to the third defendant.

It is also common ground that on the death of Manikavasagar, Theivanathan (the son of Aminipillai, who was dead), Parupathypathinipillai, Kanapathipillai, and Ponnambalam each inherited a one-fourth share of this land . . . . . .

The dispute is as to Theivanathan's one-fourth, which according to the plaintiff devolved on Theivanathan's uncles, Kanapathi and Ponnambalam, and which according to the defendants devolved on Theivanathan's aunt, Parupathypathinipillai . . . . . . . .

The plaintiff's contention is that Theivanathan having inherited the one-fourth share direct from Manikavasagar, that one-fourth share, on Theivanathan's death, as mudusam property devolved on the male relations, Kanapathi and Ponnambalam. The defendants' contention is that this one-fourth must be regarded as the chidenam of Aminipillai and should go to her surviving sister Parupathypathinipillai, the first defendant.

Both the parties rely on the principle that males inherit from males and females from females, which under the Tesawalamai is supposed to govern the devolution of property by inheritance.

But the plaintiff does not go so far as to say that because Theivanathan was a male his one-fourth share should go to a male, for then his one-fourth would go to his nearest male relation, his father. But he says that this one-fourth ' having been derived from Manikavasagar

it should devolve on the tetter's male heirs, viz., Kanapathi and Ponnambalam.

To decide the question involved, it is desirable to ascertain whether and to what extent the principle " males inherit from males and females from females" governs the devolution of property by inheritance under the Tesawalamai.

Originally the husband's property (mudusam) devolved on his sons only, and the wife's property (chidenam) was distributed among the daughters as dowry. Thus the husband's property always remained with the male heirs and the wife's property with the female heirs. But, as shown in section 1, sub-section 2, of Tesawalamai, this rule gradually fell into disuse, the dowry being given to the daughters indiscriminately from the chidenam at the mother and the mudusam of the father. It followed as a corollary that the sons inherited what remained of both the mudusam of their father and the chidenam of their mother. The old line of division between mudusam and chidenam was obliterated so far as inheritance by children was concerned.

Whatever force the principle in question may have had with regard to inheritance collaterally or in the ascending line, it does not govern inheritance in the descending line (any doubt on this point is cleared by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document