( 42 )
November10 and 19.
PUTHATAMPY et al. v. MAILVAKANAM et al.
D. C., Jaffna, 577.
Thesavalamai—What law to apply, where T.hesavalamai is silent—1 nheritance.
Where K died intestate and without heirs in the descending orascending line, and where there were children of K’s uncle and aunts,the succession should be governed, in the absence of any rule of theThesavalamai, by the Roman-Dutch Law, which admits suchchildren to the inheritance per stirpes.
f | 'HIS was a dispute between certain heirs who claimed descentfrom a common ancestor named Chattirankan. The genea-logy, admitted on both sides, was as follows :—
1 Arumugam. 1 1 ( Varitamby. Nachchi Chinnaval
Kathiran. (female). ' (fem ale).
First Second 1 i Plaintiff. Plaintiff. First Second '11111×1 Fourth
Defendant. Defendant. Defendant. Defendant.
It was also admitted that Kathiran (son of Arumugam) was theowner of the land in dispute. The question was whether, uponhis death without issue, the first and second plaintiffs, as the onlyheirs of the deceased in the male line, should inherit his property,or whether it should devolve upon the first, second, third, andfourth defendants as well, as children of the plaintiffs’ aunts.
The District Judge (Mr. Cameron) gave judgment in favour ofthe plaintiffs.
The defendants appealed.
Ha-m-payo, for defendants, appellants.
( 43 )
19th November, 1897. Lawbte, A.C.J.—
Thesavalamai undoubtedly is the law governing inheritance inthe Northern Province, but sub-sections 5 and 7 of section 1 seem tome to be silent as to the succession of remote relations to each other :5 and 7 deal only with the succession inter se of members of the samefamily, father and mother, brothers and sisters.
I presume that when the Thesavalamai is silent the law ofsuccession in the rest of Ceylon must be applied ; if so, then thefirst and second plaintiffs should get one-third, the fourth defendantone-third, and the first, second, and third defendants one-third.
I would set aside and so decree.
November10 and 19.
PUTHATAMPY et al. v. MAILVAKANAM et al