Sachchithananthan, V. Sivaguru,

1949     Present: Nagalingam and Windham JJ.

SACHCHITHANANTHAN, Appellant, and SIVAGURU,
Respondent

S. C. 445-D. C. Point Pedro, 2,935

Thesavalamai-Property purchased by wife-Marriage after Jaffna Matrimonial Rights Ordinance-Thediatetam-Effect of amending Ordinance-- Retrospective-Ordinance No. 58 of 1947.

Ordinance No. 58 of 1947 amending the Jaffna Matrimonial Bights and Inheritance Ordinance is retrospective in its operation.

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

H. W. Tambiah, with S. Sharvananda, for plaintiff appellant.

C. Thiagalingam, with V. Arulambalam, for defendant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 12, .1949. NAGALINGAM J.-

This appeal involves a point of some importance in the law of inheritance relating to persons governed by the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and. Inheritance Ordinance. I shall adopt the facts, so far as they are material, for the purpose of the present appeal, as ascertained by the learned District Judge, the correctness of which findings has not been disputed at the argument.

Two persons, Sivakamipillai and Manickam, were at one time the co-owners of the entirety of the land sought to be partitioned in this case. By deed P6 of July, 1937, these two persons conveyed the land to one Aththal subject to the condition that the vendee should reconvey the premises to the vendors on payment of the consideration with the interest stipulated therein within a period of three years from the date of the execution of the deed. By deed P7 of October, 1937, Aththal re-transferred the entirety of the land to Sivakamipillai, who was one of the vendors to her. Sivakamipillai died intestate, leaving her surviving her husband Periyathamby and three children, the plaintiff and the two defendants. The husband by deed P8 of 1945 purported to convey to the plaintiff a half-share of the land.

The defendants contend that the deed P8 was inoperative to convey any title to the plaintiff. The case for the plaintiff is that as Sivakamipillai " was married subsequently to 1911, that is to say, after the coming into operation of the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance Ordinance, the purchase by her of the property from Aththal by deed P7 of October, 1937, fell into the category of property known as Thediatetam within the meaning of section 19 of the Ordinance, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance (Amendment) Ordi­nance, No. 58 of 1947. The defendants on the other hand assert that as a result of the new section that was substituted by the amending Ordinance in place of the earlier section 19, if it can be shown that Sivakamipillai purchased the land with her separate property then the property ceases to be Thediatetam within the meaning of the new section and that no rights vested in the husband so as to make the deed P8 effective. The learned Judge has found as a fact that the consideration provided by Sivakamipillai for the purchase of the land by deed P7 was in fact her separate property.

Counsel on each side concedes that the interpretation placed by opposing Counsel on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document