( 102 )
1900 her landed property {sic) will devolve to all her children in equalrember io shares, although the daughters were married in diga."
1S03.Here the case is practically the Banie, as Ukku, who had no
'ebruary 9. other brother but Yakdessa, must have married in diga, or she.iddleton would have succeeded to the land directly from her father•T- Kiriya Davilkaraya, and applying the principle expressed byLawrie and Withers, J.J., in 2 N. L. R. 92, that where the writtenlaw does not expressly declare a forfeiture a daughter shouldnot be cut off from the inheritance, I hold that the digamarried daughters here have not forfeited their right of inherit-ance, and were entitled to convey to the defendants such sharesas they succeeded to of the land “ B.” As they have conveyedthe whole, the defendants’ title will be only good to the extent oftheir interest.
I think, therefore, that the judgment of the Commissionershould be set aside in so far as it gives the plaintiff the whole .land “ B,” and I hold that he is only entitled to $ from his motherUkku plus J of i from his brother Nandina, the remainder onlybeing that which Punchi and Hapu could have conveyed to thedefendants. The appeal will be allowed with costs, each party topay his own costs in the Court below.