Thesigar v. Oaneshalingam
Present: Gratiaen J. and Choksy A.J.T. P. THESIGAR, Appellant, and V. GAJSTESHALINGAMet al., Respondents
S. C. 451—D. C. Jaffna, 3,968
Thesavdlamai—Daughter given dowry after date of marriage—Renunciation of anyfurther rights in parents’ estate.
Under the Thesavalamai a dowried daughter loses her rights to her parents'inheritance even when the dowry is given subsequent to the date of her marriage.
GRATIAEN J.—Thesigar v. GaneshalAngam
^^PPlCATi from a judgment of the District Court,. Jaffna.
H. W. Tambiah, with G. Renganathan and Vyt'hilingam, for thoplaintiff appellant.
Chellappah, with A. Nagendra, for the defendants respondents-
Cur., adv.. vult.
February 20, 1952. Gratiaen J.—
Mr. Thambiah raised only one point for our consideration in this appealLThe question had not been precisely formulated as an issue in the Courtfbelow, but the material facts are sufficiently clear to enable us to give adecision on the point.
It is common ground that “ under the Tesawalamai a dowried daughterloses her rights to her parents’inheritance ”. Eliyan v. Velian et al.1 Mr.Thambiah contends, however, that the effect of a more recent ruling ofthis Court in Kandappu v. Veeragathy 2 is to limit the operation of thisprinciple to cases where the dowry has been received either before or at the-time of the daughter’s marriage.
find myself unable to give the ruling in Kandappu v. Veeragathy(supra) such a narrow interpretation. In that case a Tesawalamai daughterwho was not proved to have received any dowry from her parents on theoccasion of her marriage subsequently obtained by way of gift a certainproperty from her father, brother and uncle. The Court decided, upon thefacts of that particular case, that the deed of gift could not be construedas a doty ola so as to disinherit the donee.
As I understand the true principle, the question whether a subsequentgift by a parent to a married daughter operates and was intended tooperate as a donation simpliciter or as a postponed fulfilment of the earlierdbligation to provide her with a dowry is essentially a question of fact.
In the present case the deed of gift to the married daughter expresslypurports to be “ by way of dowry in consideration of her having marriedthe said (Vaithialingam) as I desired ”. Moreover, the gift was accepted onthe face of the document in the following terms, “ I the said ….dowry grantee with the consent of my husband … do hereby acceptthis dowry with full satisfaction and gratitude ”.-
Persons subject to the Tesawalamai are no doubt well aware of the legal'incidence of the granting and acceptance of dower—and these questionscannot therefore be determined with reference only to the point of timewhen tie gift was made. Adopting the language of Lyall Grant J. in
(1929) 31 N. L. R. 356.
(1951) 53 N. L. R. 119.
SWAN J.—Chelvanayakam v. Natesan
Eliyavanv. Velan (supra), I would say that in this instance “ the accept-ance of the gift as dowry necessarily implies the renunciation of angr furtherrights to a share in the parents’ estate For this reason I would rejectMr. Thambiah’s submission and dismiss the appeal with costs.
€hoksy A.J.—I agree.
A. T. P. THESIGAR, Appellant, and V. GANESHALINGAM et al., Respondents