( 440 )
Present: Ennis J. and De Sampayo J.
MAElKAJEt v. NATCH1 A.94—D. C. Puitobm, dS9.
Mufeomodau /at0~/n£e*iate dying leaving widow,female children of
paternal uncles, and agnate grandsons of paternaluncles—
'* Residuary "—" Sharer.**
Under the Muhammadan law, in default of nearer mate agnates,the paternal uncles' sons' sons, how low soever, are entitled to theresiduary estate to the exclusion of female agnates more remote *than sisters.
The Ceylon Muhammadan Code appears 10 make no. provisionfor intestate succession other than to set out the shares of thoseentitled as “ sharers." It contains no provision for the distributionof residuary estate.
The paternal uncles* agnate grandchildren are " residuaries,"f|^HE facts appear from the judgment.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for appellant.
Drieberg, for respondent.
Cur. adv. vuIt.
October 6, 1016. Ennis J.—
This is a question of succession under Ceylon Muhammadan law,The intestate died leaving surviving him a widow, three femalechildren of paternal uncles, of whom the intervenient appellant Isone, and agnate grandsons of paternal, uncles. The paternal uncles'grandsons claim the residuary estate as “ residuaries * Theintervenient chums to participate as one of the “ distant kindred,”and her case is that the surviving male agnates of the intestatecannot claim as residuaries when there are surviving female agnatesless remote. Under Muhammadan law it is dear (WUsonls Anglo-Muhammadan Jjaxo, 3rd, ed.. s. 937) that'in default of nearer maleagnates the paternal uncles' sons’ sons, how low soever, are entitledto the residuary estate to tire exclusion of female agnates amineremote than sisters. It was urged that section 6$ of the CeylonMuhammadan Code provides that all descendants are entitled toshare. It is difficult to understand the section, but it seems to
( 447 )e
formulate & rule for inheritance by descendants who are entitled to a fess. ^cone in as '1 sharers,” and notato apply at all to. the distribution £mns‘V(,of the residuary estate.Bfnijiun v
It must be remeihbered that the Ceylon Muhammadan Codd is ‘ffoMUanot exhaustive (Lebbe v. Thameen l), and that whfere it contains no *special provisions the ordinary rules of Muhammadan law must bereferred to. The Code appears to make no provirion Tor intestatesuccession other titan to set out the shares of those entitled as” sharers.” It contains no provirion that I can lee for thedistribution of residuary estate.
In the present case the widow is the only “ sharer,” and theonly question is whether the paternal uncles’ agnate grandchildrenare “ residuaries.” I am of opinion, following the Muhammadanrule, that they are, and that the order appealed from is right. Iwould dismiss the appeal with oosts.
Db Sampayo J.—I agree.
MARIKAR v. NATCHIA