015-NLR-NLR-V-46-KAWWAUMMA-Appellant-and-DAVID-SINGHO-et-al.-Respondent.pdf
54
JAYETILEKE .T.—Kaxcwaumma and David Singho.
1998Present: Howard C.J. and JayetUeke J.
KAWWAUMMA, Appellant, and DAVID SINGHO, et al.
Respondent.
228—D. C. Kurunegala, 948.
KandyanLaw—Diga marriage-—Severanceoj familyties—Forfeiture of
inheritance.
The essence of a diga marriage under the Kandyan Ijaw is the severanceof the daughter from the father's family and the entry into that of thehusband.
Punchi Menika v. Appuhamy (19 N. L. R. 353) followed.
^ PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kurunegala.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him E. A. P. Wijeratne), for eighth defendant,appellant.
C. V. Ranawake (with him Ivor Misso), for sixth and seventh defendant,respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 19, 1945. Jayetileke J.—
This is arr -action for the partition of a land called Karandagahamula-watta. The contesting parties are the eighth defendant, who is theappellant, and the six and seventh defendants, who are the respondents.One Ukku Banda Aratchi was entitled to an undivided i share of the land.He died in or about the year 1919, leaving his widow, Bandara Menika,a son by the first bed, Muthu Banda, and s son and a daughter by thesecond bed, the seventh and the eighth defendants. At the time of hisdeath the seventh and eighth defendants were of the ages of 9 and 4years, respectively. Two or three years after her husband’s deathBandara Menika married one Kiri Banda in diga. After the marriageshe went to her husband’s house taking with her the seventh and eighthdefendants. Thereupon, her brother. Wirakoon. who administered theestate of her deceased husband, leased the mulgedera to a Muslim. Themulgedera went to ruin through decay and was pulled down about threeyears ago.' Bandara Menika died 4 years after her marriage, whereuponWirakoon removed the seventh and eighth defendants to his house.When the eighth defendant attained the age of puberty the seventhd<^fendant removed her to his half-brother Muttu Banda's house. Three
JAYETIEEKE J.—Kawwaummo and David Singho.
68
or four months later Kiri Banda gave the eighth defendant in marriage-in diga to a Police Constable called Illangakoon. The only questionraised by the appeal is whether or not the eighth defendant forfeited herrights of paternal inheritance by being married out in diga. The generalrule is that when a woman marries in diga she forfeits her right to inheritany portion of her father’s estate. The forfeiture seems to be founded on.the principle enunciated by Lawrie J. in the case of Kiri Menika v. KaluMenika n note of which is given in Modder's Kandyan Law at page 426-He said :
‘ ■ Tn oldentimes land in theKandyanKingdomdid not belong tothe
individual inseparate shares:the unitwas thefamily, not thein-
dividual members of the family. All the members who lived in thehouse had a right to share in the produce, which was the result of thelabour of all, and all the males living in that house were bound toperfoim the services due to the King. It was contrary to Kandyancustom that the produce of the lands should be removed to otherhouses and eaten by o.ther families. Those who lived in the househad the rightto share and eat. Thosewho leftthe house couldnot
demand thatthe shares theyformerlyenjoyedshould be sent after
them. On this rests the rule that a priest in robes had no share;if he threw off the robes and rejoined the family his right revived.As a diga marriage did, in fact, remove one of the family from the-house, she in fact, ceased-to share in the produce ".
In Punchi Menika v. Appuhatni/ a, de Sampayo J. said—.
“ The point to be kept in view in all cases, I think, is that the essenceof a diga marriage is the severance of the daughter from the father’sfamily and the entry' into that.of her husband ”•
The evidence in the case shows that after her marriage the eighthdefendant lived for some time in the husband’s mulgedera and then,accompanied her husband to various places where he was stationed.It was urged on behalf of the eighth defendant that, as IJkku BandaAratchi’s house ceased to exist, it cannot be said .that the eighth defendantsevered her connection with her father’s house by going out in diga.The short answer to this contention is that, according to the decisionsreferred to above, the severance of family ties is involved in a womanmarrying in diga and becoming a member of her husband’s family. Inthe present case it cannot- be said that the seventh defendant has nottreated the eighth defendant well. He has given her all the jewellerythat belonged to the mother, and has also provided her with a dowry.We are satisfied upon the evidence that the eighth defendant severedher connection with her father’s family and entered the family of herhusband. She thereby forfeited the right to participate in the inheritanceof her father’s property with her brother. We would, accordingly,dismiss the appeal with costs.
Howard C.J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
■ D.C., Krirunegala 434/140, S. C. Min. 5. 1. 1894.
» 19 N. L. R. 353.