019-NLR-NLR-V-53-KANDAPPU-Appellant-and-VEERAGATHY-et-al.-Respondents.pdf
119 ‘
BASNAYAKE J.—Kandappu «. Veeragathy
Present :Basnayake J. and Gunasekera J.
KANDAPPU, Appellant, and VEEEAGATH.Y et al., RespondentsS. C. 125—D. C. Point Pedro, 3,460
Thesavalamai—Section 3, Part I—Inheritance—“ Dowry ”—Gift made to daughtersubsequent to date of marriage—Daughter’s right to inherit parents’ property.
The sense in which the expression “ dowry ’’ is nsed in the Thesavalamaiexcludes a gift made after marriage. A gift given to a daughter after hermarriage has already taken place cannot therefore operate as “ the act or. doty ola ” tor the purposes of Section 3, Part I, of the Thesavalamai, and doesnot prevent her from inheriting property from her parents.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Point Pedro.
S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, K.G., with V. Arulambalam, for the defendant,appellant.
C. Thiagalingam, K.C., with H. W. Tambiah and A. Nagendra, for therespondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 6, 1951. Basnayake J..—
In this action the plaintiff seeks to obtain a decree declaring him.entitled to an undivided half-share of the land Kottikoil described, in theplaint. He claims to be entitled thereto by virtue of deed No. 2,780 ofMay 14, 1939, whereby one Velupillai Arumugam transferred to himcertain lands including the subject-matter of this action. Velupillai.Arumugam’s title rests on a deed of gift executed by his motherWallipillai, daughter of Ledchumy.
The case of the defendants is that Wallipillai,was not entitled to theland in question. They contend tha.t she had been given a dowry onher marriage and had therefore no right to inherit her mother Ledchumy’sproperty. Each party also made a claim based on prescriptive possession.
It is admitted that Ledchumy was the original owner of the land indispute and that on her death she was survived by her husband, herdaughter Wallipillai and son, Kandar Alvar. It is also admitted thatWallipillai was married and that'Velupillai Arumugam is her son.
1 (1911) 14 N. L. R. 385.
120
BASNAYAKE J.—Kandappu e. Veeragathy
The learned District Judge has held in favour of the plaintiff both onthe question of title and on the question of prescriptive possession.
Learned Counsel for the appellant confined his argument to the questionwhether Wallipillai was entitled to inherit property from her mother.He submitted that she was not. He cited in support the followingpassage from section 3, Part 1, of the Tesawalamai :
“ The daughters must content themselves with the dowry giventhem by the act or doty ola, and are not at liberty to make any furtherclaim on- the estate after the death of their parents, unless there beno more children, in which case the daughters succeed tp .the wholeestate.”.
The above statement is by no means, precise. I understand it tomean that the married daughters to whom a dowry has been given maymake a claim to the estate of their parents only if there are no otherchildren, viz., sons and unmarried daughters. This view of the law hasbeen accepted by this Court and has been thus stated by Lyall-Grant J.in the case of Eliyavan v. Velan et al. 1:“ The admitted principle of the
Tesawalamai is that if a daughter is dowried she loses her rights to herparents’ inheritance.”
The evidence in the instant case does not establish either the date ofLedchumy’s death or of Wallipillai’s marriage. Nor is there evidenceof a doty ola or that dowry was given on Wallipillai’s marriage. There isevidence that, in June, 1904, after Wallipillai’s marriage and afterLedchumy’s death, Wallipillai’s father, brother and uncle gave her agift of a number of lands including a portion of the land Kottikoil. ButI am unable to hold that the deed of gift is a doty ola. The sense in whichthe expression dowry is used in the Tesawalamai in my opinion excludesa gift made after the marriage.
In Tambapillai et al. v. Chrinnatamby et al.2 this Court held that underthe Tesawalamai dowry may be given before the marriage. Althoughthat question does not arise here that decision is likely to create difficultyin a case where the donee dies after the gift but before the •marriage.The gift cannot in that event be called dowry. There oqn be no dowerwithout a marriage. Dowry is primarily a gift given at the time ofmarriage, The expression does not, in my opinion, admit of any othermeaning in the Tesawalamai.
It is clear from the Tesawalamai that the granting of the " dotyor " doty ola ” is an act performed at the time of the marriage and notduring the marriage. The deed of June, 1904, in favour of Wallipillaicannot therefore operate as ‘ ‘ the act or of doty ola ’’ for the purposes ofsection 3, Part I, and does not prevent her from inheriting her mother’sproperty.
•The appellant is therefore not entitled to succeed.
J
The appeal is dismissed with'“costs.
Gunasekara J.—I agree.
1 {1929) 31 N. Jj. R. 356 at 355
Appeal dismissed.
» (1915) 18 N. L. R. 346.