068-NLR-NLR-V-48-DINGIRI-MAHATMAYA-et-al.-Appellant-and-KIRIBANDA-Respondent.pdf
210
NAG ALIN GAM A.J.—Dingiri Mahatmaya v. Kiribanda.
1947Present: Nagalingam A.J.
DINGIHI MAHATMAYA et al., Appellants, andKIRIBANDA, Respondent.
4—C. R. Kegalla, 16,771
Kandyan law—Inheritance—Daughter married in deega after father’s death—Her right to share in the paternal inheritance.
Under Kandyan law, prior to the Kandyan Law Amendment Ordi-nance, a woman who married in deega after her father’s deathforfeited her right to share in the paternal inheritance.
^JPPEAL. from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Kegalla.
C. V. Ranawake, for the defendants, appellants.
No appearance for the plaintiff-respondent.
Cur. adv. vult
April 1, 1947. Nagalingam A.J.—
The question that arises on this appeal is whether under Kandyanlaw a daughter who marries in deega after her father’s death forfeitsher right to share in the paternal inheritance.
The plaintiff instituted this action claiming the value of a one-fourthshare of the paddy harvested from the field called Paragahamula-kumbura on the basis that he- is the owner of a i share of the field. Histitle is derived from his deceased wife, Dingiri Menika. Admittedlythe field belonged to Dingiri Menika’s father who died leaving fourchildren. According to the finding of the learned Commissioner DingiriMenika married in deega after the death of the father. The learnedCommissioner holds that as the marriage though in deega took placeafter the father’s death, Dingiri Menika did not forfeit her rights toinheritance in the paternal estate.
The question in this case is not governed by the Kandyan lawAmendment Ordinance, for Dingiri Menika married about twenty yearsago and died about a year thereafter. The question of law involved
The King v. Vidanagamage Edwin.
211
was decided by a bench of two Judges as early as 1910 after reviewingall the previous authorities and this decision has always been followed.It was explicitly laid down there that a woman who marries in deegaafter her father’s death forfeits her rights to the paternal inheritanceby reason of the marriage. Meera Saibo v. Punchi Rala The head-note is incorrect in that it sets out the contrary of the decision as whatwas decided by it. The Kandyan Amendment Ordinance, no doubt,softens the rigour of this principle so far as the claims of an unmarrieddaughter who survives her father to the paternal inheritance are con-cerned though the marriage be in deega, but the Ordinance, as statedearlier, has no application to the facts of the present case.
It therefore follows that Dingiri Menika did not inherit any shareof the field. The plaintiffs claim, therefore, to a share in the field fails.In this view of the matter the plaintiff’s action is dismissed with costsboth of appeal and of the lower Court.
Appeal allowed.