Ran Menika V. Nandohamy Et Al.,

1956 Present : Basnayake, A.C.J., and Weerasooriya, J.

RAN MENIKA,

Appellant, and NANDOHAMY et al., Respondents

S. C. 227-D. C. Kurunegala (Inty.) 4849/T

Kandyan Law-Illegitimate daughter married in diga-Forfeiture of right to inherit father's acquired property-Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance, No. 39 of 1938, ss. 13, 15 (c).

Section 15 (c) of the Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance does not enable a diga married illegitimate daughter to have a right of inheritance to her father's acquired property.
Where a Kandyan died intestate leaving legitimate children and also an illegitimate daughter who was married in diga -

Held, that the illegitimate daughter had no right of inheritance to her father's acquired property.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kurunegala.

C. R. Guneratne, for 2nd respondent-appellant.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with T. B. Dissanayake, for petitioner respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 16, 1956. BASNAYAKE, C.J.-

The only question that arises for determination on this appeal is whether a diga married illegitimate daughter forfeits her right to inherit her father's acquired property in consequence of her marriage in diga.

Shortly the facts are that one Sohondirala whose estate is being administered by the petitioner, his binna married daughter, left two children by his marriage, the petitioner and the first respondent, a daughter who married in diga in 1924. He also left an illegitimate daughter who married in diga, in 1921, the second respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant).

The learned District Judge has held that the first respondent and the appellant having married in diga have forfeited their rights to the inheritance and that the petitioner alone is entitled to the property left by Sohondirala.

Learned Counsel for the appellant while conceding the correctness of the learned District Judge's decision in regard to the first respondent, contends that the learned District Judge was wrong in law when he held that the illegitimate daughter who married in diga forfeited her rights. He contends that in Kandyan Law an illegitimate daughter does not by marrying in diga forfeit her rights to her father's acquired property.

He submits that, as Sohondirala died in 1950 after the Kandyan Law Declaration and Amendment Ordinance No. 39 of 1938 (hereinafter referred to as Kandyan Law Ordinance) came into operation, he would be entitled to claim the benefit of section 15 (c) of that Ordinance, as the deceased intestate had registered himself as the father of the appellant when registering her birth. That section reads -

" When a man shall die intestate after the commencement of this Ordinance leaving an illegitimate child or illegitimate children -

(a) such child or children shall have no right of inheritance in respect of the paraveni property of the deceased ;

(b) such child or children shall, subject to the interests of the surviving spouse, if any, be entitled to succeed to the acquired property of the deceased in the event of there being no legitimate child or the descendant of a legitimate child of the deceased ;

(c) any such child shall, subject to the interests of the surviving spouse, if any, be entitled to succeed to the acquired property of the deceased equally with a legitimate child or the legitimate children, as the case may be- (i) if the deceased intestate had registered himself as the father of that child when registering the birth of that child ; or (ii) if the deceased intestate had in his lifetime been adjudged by any competent court to be the father of that child ".

If the appellant had remained unmarried or had contracted a marriage in binna, there would have been no question of her right to share in the succession to her father's acquired property. But having married in diga she cannot escape the consequences of such a marriage which are thus stated i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document