( 63 )
Present: Bnnis J. and De Sampayo J.
UKKUWA v. BANDUWA.i 16—D. C. Kurunegala, 5,396.
■Kandyanlaw—Acquiredproperty-—Inheritance—Donationby father to
son—Son dying issueless, leaving mother and step-brothers.^
S, aKandyan, gifted aland tohisson P. P. diedissueless,
leavinghim surviving hismother,D,and __ step-brothers(children
of S by another wife).
Held, that the property devolved on D on the death of P, to theexclusion of his (P’s) step-brothers.
Property gifted to a person is acquired property of that person.fjpHE facts are fully set out in the judgment.
Bawa, K.C., for appellants.
G. Koch (with him P. M. Jayawardene), for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 3, 1916. Ennis J.
The question in this appeal is one of the Kandyan law of inherit-ance. In 1906 one Sedara gifted an undivided half share of certainlands to his son Pina. Pina died intestate, leaving surviving himhis mother. Dingiri. Dingiri gifted the land to Kiriya, who soldit .to the plaintiff. The defendants are the step-brothers of Pina,children of Sedara by another wife. Two points arose in the case.:first, whether the property was “ acquired ” or paraveni property;and second, whether Dingiri inherited the land on the death of Pina,or had only a life interest. It was conceded on the authorityof Dingiri Banda v. Medduma Banda1 that the property was“ acquired " property. On the second point it was urged thatBungappu v. Obias Appukamy2 was an authority. The samequestion arose in the case of Ukkuhamy v. Bala Etana,3 in which itwas pointed out that in Bungappu v. Obias Appukamy2 it was not.denied that the intestate’s acquired lands passed to his'' brothersand sisters. It would seem that the point now at issue was not^decided in that case, which is therefore not an authority for the^proposition. In Ukhuhamy v. Bala Etana3 Wendt J. dealt exhaus-tively with the question, and decided that an intestate's acquired
movable property devolved on the mother (the father being dead).
am in entire accord with that decision, and would accordingly
dismiss the appeal, with costs.
1 (1914) 17 N. L. R. 201.,s (1901) 2 Br. 286.
* (1908) U N. L. R. 226.
( w )
1916. De Sampayo J.—
Ulekwwa v.This appeal raises for determination a point in the Kandyan law
Banduvfa inheritance. One Sedara, who was married to Dingiri, was theowner of certain lands. He gifted one of the lands to his son Pinaby two deeds in 1900 and 1906, respectively. Pina died intestate,unmarried, and issueless, leaving his mother Dingiri. Sedara appearsto have predeceased Pina. The plaintiffs have purchased' the landsfrom a donee of Dingiri, and the defendants, who are children ofSedara by a former wife, claim the same as heirs of their half-brotherPina. The chief authority relied on by Mr. Bawa for the defendantsis a passage in Sower's Digest, at page 18, where it is stated:“ A
– person dying childless, having parents and brothers and sisters,the property which the deceased may have had from his otherparents reverts to them reciprocally (if from the father to the father,if from the mother to the mother), as does his acquired property,whether land, cattle, or goods, to his parents, but his parents haveonly the usufruct of the acquired property. ” The expression “ fromhis other parents “ is rather curious. Probably it is, intended torefer to cases of associated marriages. With regard to propertyinherited from the parents, the rule laid down in the above passageis universally accepted; but so far as acquired property is concerned,it is inconsistent with Sower’s page 17, and with Armour on thesame subject. After full consideration of all the authorities, includ-ing Sower’s page 13, it has been decided in Ukkuhamy v. BalaEtana1 that where a Kandyan dies unmarried, and childless, andintestate, his acquired property, in default of his father, devolveson his mother in full ownership, to the exclusion of his brothers andsisters. Ukkurala v. Tillekeratne is to the same effect. Thesedecisions, with which I entirely agree, will apply much more stronglyto a case -fchere there are only half-brothers and half-sisters. Propertygifted to a person is “ acquired property ’’ of that person. Ukkuralav. Tillekeratne (supra) and Kiri Menika v. Mutu Menika.* Theview taken in those cases appears to be in accordance with theprinciple; and I myself adopted it in Dingiri Banda v. MeddumaBandG, and held that “ acquired property ” is opposed to paravenior inherited property, and that property gifted to a son by the father.was “ acquired property ” of the son. I cannot agree to the distinc-tion which Mr. Bawa, for the defendants, sought to draw betweena gift made by the donee’s own parents and one made by a thirdparty.
I therefore think that the judgment of the District Judge is right,and would dismiss the appeal,' with costs.
1 (1908) UN. L. B. 226.• (1899) 8 N. L. B. 376.
a 5 S. C. C. 46.* (1941) 17 N. L. B. 201.
UKKUWA v. BANDUWA