1929  Present: Lyall Grant and Drieberg JJ.

LEBBE v. BANDA.

143-D. C. Kandy, 34,887.

Kandyan law-Property gifted by a Kandyan to his grandson- Devolution to aunt-Rule of succession-Nature of property.

A Kandyan gifted property to his grandson A, who died leaving an only child as his heir. Upon the death of the latter the property
devolved upon B, sister of A.

Held (on a question of inheritance arising upon the death of B without issue), that the property in the hands of B was acquired and not paraveni, and therefore devolved on her binna father to the exclusion of her half-brother.

THIS was an action for declaration of title to land. Kiribindu and Sirimalee were the daughters of one Sallelu and her binna husband Rankira; Kirisanda was the son of Sallelu by her first husband. Kiribindu had become entitled during the lifetime of her mother to certain property on a gift from her maternal grandfather. On Kiribindu's death this property devolved on her sole surviving child; the later too died, and the property in question passed to her maternal aunt, Sirimalee. Sirimalee died issueless, and the question is whether her binna father Rankira or her half-brother Kirisanda was entitled to her property.

Navaratnam (with Wendt), for plaintiff, appellant.-The finding is that the property in question is ancestral and the half-brother Kirisanda is entitled to it as such. This, in spite of the fact that a deed of gift intervened to snap an essential link in the chain of paraveni title. Sallelu, the mother of Kirisanda, was at no time the owner of the property, so that the principle that on the failure of descendants property goes back to the source whence it came can have no application. The property in the hands of Kiribindu was clearly acquired by virtue of the gift from her grandparent. Authority for this proposition is to be found in Dingiri Banda v. Medduma Banda et al. [1 17 N. L. R. 201.] and Ran Menika v. Madalihamy [2 16 N.L.R. 131.] and other cases. In the hands of Kiribindu's child, no doubt, the property was paraveni, but in the hands of Sirimalee it was not property derived through her mother but otherwise acquired. Sawer at page 14 definitely states that a binna father, although he is not entitled to the property of his children born in binna where such property is derived through their mother, succeeds to such children's property if otherwise acquired. The rule of Kandyan law that

property reverts to the source whence it came is merely an exception to the natural and general principle of succession, and must there- fore be strictly applied. Thus on principle and authority the right of the binna father to succeed must prevail.

March 23, 1929. LYALL GRANT J.-

This appeal from the District Court of Kandy raises a question whether certain lands are to be considered paraveni lands.

The land originally belonged to the maternal ancestors of the person whose inheritance, is now in dispute. They by a deed of August 31, 1898, donated them to two grandchildren, born of their binna married daughter, in equal shares.

We are concerned with the devolution of one of these shares. The grandchild Kiri Bindu, daughter of Sallelu, died leaving a child, also called Sallelu, who inherited this share. This child died and her share passed to her aunt Sirimalee. Sirimalee has now died and the share is claimed on the one hand by her father, the appellant, and on the other by her uterine half-brother, the respondent. Sallelu, the mother of Sirimalee, predeceased her.

It is agreed that the question to be decided is whether in the hands of Sirimalee the land was ancestral (paraveni) or acquired.

The learned District Judge says that this property is the ancestral property of Sirimalee and her mother Sallelu. But it is important to observe that the land never was the property of Sallelu, the mother. Accordingly the passage in Sawer to which the learned District Judge refers do