Nagalingam V. Thanabalasingham

 1948    Present: Canekeratne and Dias JJ.

NAGALINGAM, Appellant, and THANABALASINGHAM, Respondent

S. C. 1-2-D. C. Point Pedro, 2,198

 

Donation-Possession by donee-Acceptance-Revocation-Jus accrescendi- Application to deeds of gift-Intention of donor.

There is a valid acceptance of a gift when the subject of a donation comes into the possession of the donee. A unilateral act of the donor cannot thereafter revoke the gift.

The principle of jus accrescendi applies to dispositions inter vivos. But it must be gathered from the document that the donor positively contemplated the predecease of a donee and intended that the specific, share of that person should, in that event, go to his co-donees.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Point Pedro.

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, K.C., with C. Chellappah, for plaintiff appellant in No. 1 and respondent in No. 2.

E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with H. W. Tambiah, for second, third, and fourth defendants, respondents in No. 1 and appellants in No. 2. ,

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

October 13, 1948. CANEKERATNE J.-

These are appeals from a judgment in an action for partitioning a land " called Mungkodai and Mavattai " which comprises lots 1 and 2 in the plan marked Z. By deed No. 5,825 (marked P4), dated April 1, 1896, one Koolaiyar Arumugam and his wife, Walliammai, gifted, inter alia, this land to their eldest son, Arumugam Kandavanam, whom I shall refer to hereafter as Kandavanam. He married one Eledchumy, who was related to him, probably according to customary rites about 1903: the marriage was registered on April 9, 1904 (2D20). Their eldest child, the second defendant was born on October 14, 1904, two other children of the marriage are the third and fourth defendants. The plaintiff claimed a half share of the land and allotted the other half to his brother, the first defendant: they are the surviving sons of the donors. Their case was that the donors by deed P5, revoked the gift in favour of Kandavanam and by deed P6 gifted, inter alia, this land to Kandavanam subject to certain conditions. Both P5 and P6 were executed on the same day, July 6, 1908, and attested by the same notary, one K. Kanthavanam, two of the attesting witnesses in both were the same, the third attesting witness to P5 was one Kanthar Saravanamuttu, to P6 one Kanthar Vallipuram. The second to fourth defendants attack the genuineness of P5 and P6. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that P5 and P6 were executed by the parties named therein and that

 

the second to fourth defendants as some of the heirs of A. Poopalasingham another son of the donors, became entitled to one-ninth share. The plaintiff appeals from this judgment and contends that the whole property passed to him and the first defendant and that the order depriving him of costs of contest is wrong (S. C. No. 1). The second to fourth defendants in their appeal (S. C. No. 2) content that the finding that P5 and P6 are genuine documents is wrong.

K. Kanthavanam's

Click Here to Read the rest of this document