Francis Daniel David V. David

1929. Present: Fisher C.J. and Drieberg J.

FRANCIS DANIEL DAVID v. DAVID et al.

159-D. C. (Inty.) Jaffna, 22,900.

Thesawalamai-Females inherit from females-Application of principle to unmarried sister-Conditional gift-Estoppel.

Where, under the Thesawalamai, a married woman died without issue, leaving an unmarried sister and three brothers-

Held, that the sister was entitled to succeed to the dowry property of the intestate to the exclusion of the brothers.

Held also, that where the surviving sister accepted a conditional - gift of the shares of the brothers on the footing that she was entitled to a one-fourth share, the sister was not estopped from claiming title to the whole land.

THIS was an action for declaration of title to one-fourth share of a land, which belonged to one Maria, who died leaving as her heirs three brothers and one unmarried sister. The parties were

governed by the Thesawalamai, and the question in issue was whether 1929. the property, which was dowered on Maria by parents, devolved on Francis the brothers and the sister in equal shares, or solely on the sister. The learned District Judge held that the sister was estopped from claiming title to the whole land by reason of the fact that she had been a party to certain deeds with the brothers on the footing that she was entitled to only a one-fourth share.

H. V. Perera (with Subramaniam), for defendant, appellant.- Property in dispute was that of Maria. She died leaving one unmarried sister, Elizabeth, and three brothers, John, Francis, and Benjamin. Property devolved on Elizabeth alone to the exclusion of the brothers, vide Kuddiar v. Sinnar [1 17 N. L. R. 243.]. Females succeed to females.

The transfer P 2 of March 7, 1900, by one of the brothers, Benjamin (first defendant, administrator of Maria's estate), purporting to give a fourth share each to Elizabeth and to the three brothers is invalid in law.

P 2 being invalid, title to the whole property vested in Elizabeth.

The donation P 3 by the three brothers on November 19, 1904, of each of their one-fourth share to Elizabeth on certain terms and conditions transferred nothing in effect, since title already vested in Elizabeth.

Elizabeth has dealt with the property in part : this does not preclude her title to the whole. The brothers have not dealt with their shares at all since 1904. Defendant claims title from Elizabeth.

N, E. Weerasooria (with Gnanapragasam), for plaintiff, respondent.-Cases quoted refer to devolution of property to married sisters to the exclusion of brothers. In the present case Elizabeth was not married at the time of Maria's death.

P 2 is valid; P 3 also valid; P 3 was acquiesced in by Elizabeth, who signed it. Only one brother consented to marriage of Elizabeth according to terms of P 3 ; shares of two brothers did not vest in her.

Elizabeth dealt with only her share and one brother's share- and is estopped from claiming anything more. The two brothers' shares remained with them : they now claim it.

November 4, 1929. FISHER C.J.-

The first point in this case is whether on the death of Maria, leaving three brothers and one unmarried sister Elizabeth, the property with which Maria had been dowered devolved upon the three brothers and the sister in equal shares, or on the sister solely. The learned Judge held that it devolved on the sister only, and I think that that conclusion is right. De Sampayo J. in his judgment in Kuddiar v. Sinnar [2 17 N. L. R. at p. 244.] says:-" One general rule of the Tesawalamai is that males succeed to males and females to females, and

accordingly it was held in Thambar v. Chinnatamby [1 (1903) 4 Tamb. 60. ] that where an unmarried woman left a married sister and brothers, the sister succeeded to the exclusion of the brothers." Again, Grenier J. in his judgement in Thiagarajah v. Paranchotipillai [2 11 N. L. R. 46.] says:-"There is thus recognized by the Tesawalamai a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document