( 288 )
1927- aLfl Marikar et al. v. Marikar et al.2 Sulaikaummah v. AhamaduDbiebero Levvai,3 Naina Marikar v. Amarasooriya* XJsoof v. Raimath*J* Hadjie v. Fernando,6 Nairia Ijebbe v. Marikar et al.,7 Hadjiar v.Bfdieis v. Meyappa,8 Sango Vmma v. Meyappa Chetty9 and John Perera v. AvoePerem Marikar (supra). In Rahiman Lebbe et al. v. Hasson Ussan Ummaand another,10 an ante-nuptial contract with reciprocal promisescontaining a provision that all the present and future property ofthe wife should vest in the husband and after his death it shouldvest in the children on their attaining majority, was considered andheld to be valid. Schneider J. there said—
44 The principles of Muhammadan law as found in treatises havebeen adopted as governing Muhammadans here in thematter of pure donations, because since 1862 there hasbeen evidence that the custom of the Ceylon Muhammadanrecognized those general principles. But in the constructionof deeds, wills, fidei commissa, and in ordinary mattersof contract the principles of the ordinary general lawand not of the Muhammadan law are always applied.’'
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
» (1909) 12 N. L. R. 241
(1916) 2 C. W. R. 79
(1917) 19 N. L. R. 473
(1918) 5 C. W. R. 60
N. L.R. 225
• (1919) 6 C.W.R . 3677 (1921) 3 C. L. Rec. 61« (1922) 23 N. R. R. 3339 (1922) 4 C. L. Rec. 113"(1916) 3 C. W. R. 88