Back
KASIPILLAI v. THEIVANAPILLAI
NLR58V187
1956 Present: Sansoni,
J., and H. N. G. Fernando, J.
A. KASIPILLAI et a!., Appellants, and THEIVANAPILLAI,
Respondent
S. C. 561-D. C. Jaffna 1,108/T
Administration of estates-" Legal personal representative "-Ordinary meaning
of the expression-Thesavalamai-Gratuity paid to public servant-Thediathetam.
A sum of Rs. 4,464 was paid to the credit of the present case by the Government
of Malaya. It represented a gratuity which was payable by the Government of
Malaya under Rule 19 of the Malayan Pensions Ordinance. Rule 19 reads
"Where an officer holding a pensionable office, who is not serving on probation
or agreement, dies while in the service of the Federated Malay States, it shall
be lawful for the High Commissioner to grant his legal personal representative a
gratuity of an amount not exceeding one year's pensionable emoluments.
Held, that when Rule 19 provided that a gratuity was payable to an
officer's "legal personal representative ", it made the sum payable to the
executor or administrator of the officer's estate, and it became part of the
assets of the estate to be paid out to his heirs at law only. The widow,
therefore, who was not an heir of the deceased, was not entitled to any part of
the money for her own use and benefit, even if she was administratrix of
the estate of the deceased.
Held further, that a gratuity paid to a public servant on retirement from
service is not Thediathetam.
APPEAL
from an order of the District Court,
Jaffna.
H. W. Jayewardene Q. C., with V. Thillainathan, for the respondents appellants.
C. Chellappah, with A. Sambandam and S. Sharvananda, administratrix- respondent.
Cur. adv. vult
February 9, 1956. SANSONI, J.-
Two sums of money, namely, a sum of Rs. 4,464 and a sum of Rs.828.30 were
paid to the credit of this case by the Government of Malay latter sum represents
the unpaid salary and cost of living allowance to the deceased Arumugam
Nagesapillai whose estate is being administered in these proceedings. It is not
disputed that this latter sum should divided between his widow (who is also his
administratrix) 1st to 13th respondents (who are his brothers and sisters and
their children), the widow to-king a half share and the others taking a
half share.
The sum of Re. 4,464 represents a gratuity which was payable Government of
Malaya under Rule 19 of the Malayan Pensions 0 (Cap. 23). That Rule reads:
"Where an officer holding a pensionable office, who is not on probation or
agreement, dies while in the service of the F Malay States, it shall be lawful
for the High Commissioner his legal personal representative a gratuity of an
amount not e one year's pensionable emoluments
Before the District Judge, at the stage of judicial settlement accounts, the
deceased's widow claimed the entirety of this amount dependant of the deceased,
while the respondents claimed t] were entitled to the entirety as the heirs o-f
the deceased, sine sum is not Thediathetam property the widow has no right to a
of it. In view of the decision in Seethanqaniammal v. Eliyaperumal [(1936) 39 N.
N. R. 86. ] where it was decided that a gratuity paid to a public sec retirement
from service is not thediathetam, the widow can not any share of tins money on
that basis.
Can it be said that as a dependant of the deceased she is entitled sum ? It
seems to have been argued that although the decease 1948 the devolution. of this
sum must be governed by the term; of the Pensions Ordinance No. 1 of 1951 of
Malaya, under w gratuity is payable to such of the dependants of the deceased
public officer as the Chief Secretary or Resident Commissioner may -This
argument found favour with the learned District Judge -that the entire gratuity
was payable to the widow. But as this C
was not in operation at the time
of the deceased's death, its terms cannot in any way control the operation of
Rule 19 of the Pensions Enactment which was the relevant enactmen
