023-SLLR-SLLR-1996-1-APPUHAMY-ALIAS-KULASINGHE-V.-ABEYRATNE-AND-ANOTHER.pdf
• 330
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
APPUHAMY ALIAS KULASINGHEV.
ABEYRATNE AND ANOTHER
SUPREME COURT.
G.P.S.DE SILVA, C.J.
KULATUNGA, J. ANDRAMANATHAN, J.
S.C APPEAL NO. 50/95.
A. NO. 260/84.
A.T. KEGALLE NO. 5042.
24 OCTOBER 1995.
Agrarian Services Act, No. 58 of 1979, section 68 – Tenant cultivator -Succession.
When the tenant cultivator dies his widow claiming to succeed her husbandas a tenant cultivator must herself continue to be "cultivator” as defined insection 68 of the Agrarian Services Act. She may enjoy the protection of theAct only so long as she continues to be the cultivator. A person whobecomes the tenant cultivator by operation of law may also cease to betenant cultivator when he fails to perform the functions assigned to a cultivatorunder section 68 of the Act. Where the claim of the husband to be ownercultivator was rejected, his widow cannot be treated as having succeeded tothe tenancy where moreover the widow did not function as the tenant cultivatorafter her husband's death. No tenancy rights can be claimed through her.
Case referred to:
Alice Nona v. Ranasinghe (I986) C.A.L.R. Vol. 1 p. 133.
APPEAL from judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Faisz Musthapha P.C. with Sanjeewa Jayawardena for the Appellant.
A.E. Thevarapperuma for Respondent.
Cur.adv.vult.
November 15, 1995.KULATUNGA, J.
On 24.11.77 the Respondent notified the Agricultural Tribunal in
sc
Appuhamy v. Abeyratne and Another (Kutatunga, J.)
33'
terms of section 3(3) of the Agricultural Lands Law No. 42 of 1973 thathe was the tenant cultivator of a paddy land called "Bulathwatte" from1975 and that he had been evicted therefrom on 24.09.77. The Appel-lant is the owner of the land. Whilst proceedings in respect of the saidnotification were pending before the Agricultural Tribunal, the Agricul-tural Lands Law was repealed and replaced by the Agrarian ServicesAct, No.58 of 1979; and the inquiry into the complaint was duly heldby an Assistant Commissioner under the said Act. The Commissionerheld that the Respondent was the tenant cultivator of the paddy land indispute and that he had been evicted therefrom.
The Appellant's defence was that he had always been the owner-cultivator of the land. On the basis of the oral and documentary evi-dence, the Assistant Commissioner found that up to 1975 the Respond-ents's father (one Mudiyanse) had been the tenant cultivator and onMudiyanse's death, the Appellant had let the paddy land to the Re-spondent who cultivated it until the date of his eviction. The Appellantalso contended that in any event, assuming that Mudiyanse was theoriginal tenant cultivator, on his death his widow Dingirimahattaya be-came the lawful succcessor in terms of section 7 of Law No. 42 of I973in the absence of a nomination of a successor by Mudiyanse in termsof section 6; Dingirimahattaya had not transferred her rights to theRespondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section10; hence the Respondent had no status to claim the land qua tenantcultivator.
The Assistant Commissioner did not consider the second pointraised above; but the Court of Appeal held that the evidence given bythe Appellant was that he had been the owner-cultivator throughout;hence the question of rights of succession did not arise. The Court ofAppeal affirmed the order made by the Assistant Commissioner. Hencethe appeal to this Court. Special leave to appeal was granted on thequestion whether the Respondent had the status to make a claim tothe land in dispute as tenant cultivator.
At the hearing before us, Mr. Jayawardena submitted on behalf ofthe Appellant that according to the evidence, Dingirimahattaya (who isstill alive) used to assist her husband Mudalihamy when he was thecultivator. After Mudiyanse's death, she continued to participate in
332
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996/1 Sri L.R.
cultivating the land. She used to bring food and tea for the men whowere assisting in the work. She also used to join in weeding the land.Counsel submitted that in these circumstances, Dingirimahattaya wasin fact the cultivator after 1975 within the meaning of the definition"cultivator" under section 54 of the Law, carrying out the requisite op-erations by a member of her family viz., her son, the Respondent.
Mr.Thevarapperuma for the Respondent submitted that devolutionof title under the law is an issue that can arise in a contest betweenrival claimants of the deceased tenant cultivator's interests and notothers; the widow of Mudalihamy has not claimed her rights to theland, that the Appellant's submission on the basis of tenancy rights inthe widow cannot help him; that after his claim as owner cultivator wasrejected, he cannot claim that the widow should be treated as havingsucceeded to the tenancy and seek to dispossess the Respondent, onthat basis.
There is substance in the submissions made by Counsel for theRespondent. If we are to hold that the Respondent has no right toclaim the land in dispute as a tenant cultivator for the reason that hismother is the lawful successor to the tenancy, the Respondent will stillbe entitled to remain in occupation of the land and cultivate it on behalfof his mother. There is also a question as to whether the Respondent'smother has at all functioned as the tenant cultivator of this land, afterthe death of her husband. The Respondent's evidence is that duringthe lilfe time of Mudalihamy he assisted Mudalihamy to cultivate theland; and that after Mudalihamy's death, he alone cultivated it.
No doubt the Respondent's mother assisted her husband as wellas the Respondent by taking meals for the workmen and by joining inweeding the paddy field. This is the traditional role of a village womanin paddy cultivation. Apart from this, there is no indication that afterher husband's demise she either claimed or exercised the rights of aperson who had become the tenant cultivator by operation of law. Theindications are that she had abandoned her rights. In Alice Nona v.Ranasinghe(1) it was held that a wife claiming to succeed to her hus-band as a tenant cultivator must herself continue to be "cultivator" asdefined in section 68 of the Agrarian Services Act. She may enjoy theprotection of the Act, only so long as she continues to be the cultiva-
sc
Appuhamy v. Abeyratne and Another (Kulatunga, J.)
333
tor. A person who becomes the tenant cultivator by operation of lawmay also cease to be the tenant cultivator when he fails to perform thefunctions assigned to a cultivator under section 68 of the Act. In thatcase, the widow claimed that she had exercised her rights by cultivat-ing the land jointly with her brother; but the Court held against her. Inthe instant case the widow herself has made no claim of rights.
For the foregoing reasons, I see no error in the judgment of theCourt of Appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal and affirm the judg-ment of the Court of Appeal with costs which I fix in a sum of Rs.1050/-
P.S. de SILVA, C.J. – I agree.
RAMANATHAN, J. -1 agree.
Appeal dismissed.