018-NLR-NLR-V-62-K.-M.-KUMARASAMY-Appellant-and-W.-T.-R.-BAND-and-another-Respondent.pdf
68
BASNAYAXE, O.J.—Kumaraaamy v. Banda
1959Present :Basnayake, C. J., and Pulle, J.
K. M. KUMAR AS AMY, Appellant, and W. T. R. BANDA
and another, Respondents
S.C. 221—D. C. Kandy, L 3980jA
Kandyan Law—Donation—Revocahility.
Where in a Kandyan deed of gift the donor declares in most clear languagethat the deed i& irrevocable, he is not entitled to go hack on it.
_^^_PP13ALi from a judgment of the District Court, Kandy.
S. Nadesan, Q.C., with B. S. C. Ratwatle, for Plaintiff-Appellant-
W. JayewarSiene, Q.C., with T. B.'Dissanayake and L. C. Seneviratne,for 2nd Defendant-Respondent.
July 20, 1959. Basnayake, C. J.—
The only question for decision in this appeal is w hether the deed of giftmarked 2D1 is revocable. The material portion of the deed reads asfollows :—
“ Know all men by these presents that I, Appullanagedera KiriMuttuwa of Yatawara Pallegampaha Korale Pata Dumbara in theDistrict of Kandy Central Province am seised and possessed uponDeed of transfer No. 2177 dated 31st day of October 1886 attested byD. J. C. Gunatilleke Notary Public of all that portion in extent half anacre towards the North from and out of the land called and known asNikaattahenewatte in extent three acres and six perches in the wholesituated at Yatawara aforesaid the said portion towards the North being
1 (1916) 19 N. L. R. 142.
BASNAYAKE, C.*T.—ICwnarasamy v. Banda
00
bounded on the North by the ditch of Raraadeniyehena on the Eastby the road on the South by the Mala Ela and on the West by the limitof Kiri Muttuwa’s garden of the value of rupees one hundred (Rs. 100)lawful money of Ceylon, which said portion of land together with theplantations and everything thereto belonging I have hereby given andgrant by way of gift which cannot be revoked for any reason or in anymanner whatsoever unto my grand-daughter Gallange AppullangederaHoratalie residing at Yatawara aforesaid in consideration of the loveand affection I have towards her and with the object of obtainingsuccour and assistance from her during the lifetime of me the said KiriMuttuwa Veda. ”
During the course of the trial in the District Court there appears to havearisen a difference of opinion as to the correctness of the translation of thedeed produced by the 2nd defendant and a translation by the interpretermudaliyar of the court was produced. The material portion of thattranslation reads as follows :—
“ Know all men by these presents that I, Appullangedera KirimutuwraVeda of Yatawara in Pallegampaha Korale of Pata Dumbara in theKandy District in the Central Province, for and in consideration of thenatural love and affection which I have and bear towards my belovedgrand-daughter Gallange Appullanagedera Horatalie also of Yatawaraaforesaid and for divers other good reasons, and with the expectationof getting the said Horatalie to render me the donor KirimuthuwaVeda succour and assistance during my lifetime do hereby donate grantand convey the premises described in the schedule hereto valued atRs. 100 ( Rupees One Hundred of lawful money of Ceylon ) and held andpossessed by me under and by virtue of the annexed deed of transferin my favour bearing No. 3177 dated 31st October 1886 attested byD. J. C. Gunathilaka, Notary Public, together with the treesplantations, buildings and everything appertaining thereto, by way ofgift absolute and irrevocable under any circumstances whatsoeverhereafter, unto the said Horatalie. ”
It is not necessary to refer to all the cases cited to us by learned counselfor the appellant. In our view, the law as regards Kandyan deeds ofgift is laid down in the ease of Bologna v. Punchi Mahalmaya 1. Inthat case this court stated that “it is impossible to reconcile all the de-cisions as to the revocability or non-revocability of Kandyan deeds ;but the Supreme Court thinks it clear, that the general rule is, that suchdeeds are revocable, and also that before a particular deed is held to beexceptional to this rule, it should be shown that the circumstances whichconstitute non-revocability appear most clearly on the face of the deeditself”. In the instant case we have no doubt that the words “whichcannot be revoked for any reason or in any manner whatsoever ” makethe deed irrevocable and an exception to the rule set out above. It issettled law that the words in a deed are to be construed most stronglyagainst him who uses them, if so doing works no wrong. The authorities
1 18G3—G8 Jiftmanathan's Reports, 195.
70
Jtajaihurai v. Public Health Inspector, Valvetithurai
are collected in Norton on Deeds (2nd editioi) at page 127 el seq. Ofthose the following quotation from Co. Litt. 183a,183b, merits
repetition :—
“ It is a maxime in law, that every man’s grant shall be taken byconstruction of law most forcible against himself. Quaelibet concessioforlissime contra donator em interp re t and a est, which is so to be under-stood, that no wrong be thereby done ; for it is another maximein law, Quod legis consiruclio non facit injuriatn. ”
In this deed the donor having declared that the deed is irrevocable inmost clear language, he is not entitled to go back on it. In our opinionthe learned District Judge is right in the conclusion he has arrived at.The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Puiii»E, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.