Kathirithamby Et Al. V. Subramaniam

1950 Present: Nagalingam J.

KATHIRITHAMBY et al., Appellants, and SUBRAMANIAM,
Respondent

S. C. 153-C. R. Point Pedro, 449

Thesavalamai-Property purchased by husband-Marriage in 1931 or 1932-Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance Ordinance (Cap. 48), sections 19 and20-Thediatheddam-Retrospective effect of amending Ordinance No. 58 of 1947-Sections 2 and 7-Construction of statutes-Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2), section 5-Appeal dismissed without judgment-Validity as judicial precedent.

Ordinance No. 58 of 1947 amending the Jaffna Matrimonial Eights and Inheritance Ordinance is retrospective in its operation and has effect from the date of the passing of the main Ordinance in 1911. Satchithanandan v. Sivaguru (1949), 50 N. L. R. 293 followed.

Under the new sections 19 and 20, thediatheddam is regarded as a species of property which, though' not forming part of the separate estate of the spouse in whose name such property may stand, yet loses the character of its being common to both spouses, which was of the essence of the nature of thediatheddam property under the Thesavalami.

Where the appeal in a case is dismissed without reasons being gives it is incorrect to treat the judgment of the, lower Court either as a judgment of the Supreme Court or as judgment which has any binding effect on the Supreme Court.

APPEAL from a judgment ,of the Court of requests, Point Pedro

The defendant, a Jaffna Tamil, purchased a 1/4 share of a land by a deed of 1934. He was married to plaintiff's sister in the year 1931 or 1932 and the wife died in 1940. It was contended on behalf of the-plaintiffs that as the land was acquired during the subsistence of the defendant's marriage it fell under the category of property known as. thediaheddam and that on the death of their sister, the defendant's wife, they inherited a half of the acquired land.

H. W. Tambiah, with S. Sharvananda, for plaintiffs appellants.

S. Subramaniam, with P. Navaratnarajah, for defendant respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

May 23, 1950. NAGALINGAM J.-

The construction of certain provisions of the Jaffna Matrimonial Bights and Inheritance Ordinance, Cap. 48, as amended by the Jaffna Matrimonial Bight and Inheritance (Amendment) Ordinance, No. 58 of 1947, is involved on this appeal. The facts which give rise to the dispute-briefly are that the defendant, a Jaffna Tamil, purchased a 1/4 share of the land the subject-matter of this action by a deed of 1934 (P1). ' He was married to sister of the plaintiffs in the year 1931 or 1932 and the wife died in 1940.

The case for the plaintiffs is that the property having been acquired during the subsistence of the defendant's marriage it fell under the category of property known as tediatetam and that on the death of their sister, the defendant's wife, they inherited a half of the acquired land; and as the defendant, has prevented them from possessing their share they bring this action for the recovery of consequential damages.

The case of the plaintiffs is rested upon a reading of sections 19 and 20 as first enacted in the main Ordinance. It cannot be gainsaid that if those provisions applied, the property in Question having been acquired for valuable consideration during the subsistence of the marriage, the property fell under the category of tediatetam as defined in section 19 and that on the death of the wife by virtue of section 20, a half share thereof vested in the plaintiffs as heirs of the deceased spouse.

The defendant, however, contends that these provisions so much relied upon by the plaintiffs have been abrogated by the amending Ordinance and that the new sections 19 and 20 substituted by it for the old provisions should alone be looked at for the purpose of -deciding, the rights of parties. In regard to this, contention, the plaintiffs join issue with the defendant and assert that the amending Ordinance which found a place in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document