( 273 )
Present: Fisher C.J. and Garvin J.
KEPPITIPOLA KUMABIHAMY v. RAMBXJKPOTHA.
12—D. C. Kandy, 771.
Minor—Appointment of guardian and curator—Test of jurisdiction— .- Residence of minor—Ordinance No. 1 of 1889, s. 71.
The test of jurisdiction as regards the appointment by Court of aguardian or curator for a minor is the resideqpe of the minor.
PPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Kaddy.
Navaratnam, for appellant.
H. V. Perera, for respondent.
February 21,1928. Fisher C.J.—
We have to consider what is meant by the second paragraph ofsection 71 of the Courts Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889. The question ofconvenience does not arise. It is purely a question of construction.The paragraph in question reads as follows :—
Also in the Him manner, and with the same powers, the care ofthe persons of minors and wards and the charge of theirproperty within its district shall be subject to the juris-diction of the District Court.
The first paragraph of the section relates to persons of unsoundmind and provides that the test as to jurisdiction of a District Courtboth as to appointing guardians and curators of property is theresidence of the person of unsound mind. It is contended byMr. Navaratnam that the test of jurisdiction under the secondparagraph is the residence of the minor as regards appointing aguardian and the situation of the property as regards appointing acurator.
In my opinion, if we gave effect to that contention we should fail. to give effect to the words “ Also in the like manner.” Itmight have been better to put the words “ within its district ”after the words “ minors and wards,” but those words undoubtedlyqualify “minors and wards.” In my opinion on the trueconstruction the test of jurisdiction in that paragraph, both asregards guardian and curator, is residence just as it is in thefirst paragraph. That construction gives effect to the words “ Alsoin the like manner ” and is, in my opinion, supported by the judg-ment in In the Matter of M. O. D. Fernando, a minor.1 Section
' 2 N.L.R. 249.
22J.N. 9487 (11/46)
( 274 )
JFisbbb C. J.
584 of the Civil Procedure Code may no doubt be cited to supportthe view which Mr. Navaratnam asks us to accept, but on the otherhand the provisions of section 587 negative that .view and is infavour of the view I have put forward.
In my opinion the decision of the learned Judge was right, and theappeal must be dismissed with costs.
Garvin J.—I agree.
KEPPITIPOLA KUMARIHAMY v. RAMBUKPOTHA