Swamipillai V. Soosaipillai

1947 Present: Windham J.
 
SWAMIPILLAI, Appellant, and SOOSAIPILLAI, Respondent.
 
S. C. 165-C. R. Mallakam, 13,005.

    Thesavalamai-Property of deceased wife-Life interest of husband-Extent of such interest-Sale by son after majority-Bights of vendee-Chapter 51, sections 9 and 11-Chapter 48, section 37.
 
Under the Thesavalamai in terms of Chapter 51 of the Legislative Enactments a husband married before 1911 is entitled to a life interest in his deceased wife's property provided he does not marry again and dowers his daughters.
 
The provisions of Chapter 48 of the Legislative Enactments have no application to questions concerning the rights of spouses where the parties were married before 1911.
 
APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Mallakam.
 
C. Shanmuganayagam, for the defendant, appellant.-Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and the other clauses of the statute so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. (Maxwell on Interpretation 8th ed., p. 20 A. G. v. Brown1.) Clause 1 of section 11 of the Thesawalamai read together with clauses 2, 3 and 4 sufficiently indicates that the widower has a right to possess the deceased spouse's estate only until the daughters are married and the sons acquire a competent age, unlike the widow who by reason of her sex has been endowed with larger rights as set out in section 9.
 
If, however, section 11 is considered not sufficiently clear OK this point, the question has to be decided on general principals (Kuddiar v. Sinnar)2 and with reference to the principles underlying the provisions of Ordinance No. 1 of 1911, in view of the fact that the latter is an Ordinance which gave expression to certain established customs (Vallipillai V. Saravanamuttu 3 ; Murugesu v. Kasinathar)4, whereas the Thesawdlamai is in the words of Tennyson nothing but a " wilderness of single instances (Chellappa v. Kanapathy)5. in fact the Legislature considered section 11 of the Thesawalamai: obsolete in certain respects (Thevanapillai v. Ponniafi 6 ; Aniiapillai v. Sarawanarnuttu) 7. The widower's rights under the Thesawalamai ate narrower than under the Ordinance of 1911 ; the latter, though extending that right, did not give the widower a complete life-interest-Annapillai v. Saravanamutttu (supra).
 
The decision in Chellappah v. Arumugam 8 which is the sole basis of the learned Commissioner's judgment in the present case, is not applicable, as the facts are different; in that case the deceased mother left an infant child, while here the child was a major at the time of the mother's death ;
 
1 (1920) 1 K. B. 773 at 791. 5 (1914) 17 N. L. R. 294.

2 (7914) 17 N. L. R. 243.      6 (1914) 17 N. L. R. 437.

3 (1914) 17 N. L. R. 381.     7 (193S) 40 N. L. R. 1.

4 (1923) 25 N. L. R. 201.     8  5 Tamb 145.

the learned Judge has further stated in that case : " I express this opinion with some hesitation in view of the decision reported in 3 Lorensz 193 " ; where it was held that according to the Thesavalamai and customs of the place, the children being dead, the interstate's husband had no interest in the estate. Moreover, Ctiellappah v. Arumugam (supra) has been overruled by Theagarajah v. Paranchotipillai1. where the right of administering the wife's estate would have been granted to the widower if he was considered to have any life-interest.
 
S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, K.C. with A. Vythilingatn, for the plaintiff, respondent.-Ordinance No. 1 of 1911 does not apply to the present case , section 14 of the Ordinance expressly states that the " following " sections do not apply to parties married before 1911 ; sections 37 and 38 relating to life-interest were "following " sections even at the time the Ordinance was enacted.
 
The Thesawalamai is the only law applicable to the present case. The relevant provision of the Thesawalamai is section 11, but all clauses other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document