080-NLR-NLR-V-17-KUDDIAR-et-al.-v.-SINNAR-et-al.pdf
( 248 )
Present: De Sampayo A.J.
1814.
KTJDDIAR et al. v. SINNAB et al.
43—C. B. Point Pedro, 15,610.
Tesawalamai—Sister dying intestate and unmarried—Both married andunmarried sisters succeed.
Under the Tesawalamai t where an unmarried sister dies intestateand issueless, but leaving brothers and both married and un-married sisters, all the sisters succeed to the said estate. There isno role excluding a married sister from succession to an unmarriedsister.
fJlHE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
Wadsworth (with Balasingham), for the third and fourth defendants,appellants.—The general rule of the Tesawalamai is, males succeedto males and females to females (4 Tomb. 60, IT N. L. B, 345,14 N. L. B. 60). There is no rule excluding married sistersfrom succession to unmarried sisters. Dowried sisters succeedto the property of dowried sisters, but there is no corresponding,ride which restricts succession to unmarried sisters to unmarriedsisters only. In the absence of such a rule the general principleshould apply, tod all sisters, irrespective of marriage, should succeed.
Kanagasabai, for the plaintiff, respondent.—A daughter oncedowried has no further claim on her parents’ property, nor to theproperty of the parents which has devolved on the unmarriedsisters or brothers. The fact that dowried sisters succeed ex-clusively to the property of the dowried sisters clearly implies thatthey have no further right to any other property. The principlethat females succeed to females means, in a case like this, that thereis a right to succession among females, barring those who have beendowried.
Wadsworth, in reply.
March 19, 1914. De Sampayo A.J.—
Cur. adv. vult.
This appeal raises a point of inheritance under the Tesawalamaiin the following circumstances. Ponatchi was owner of 2/8ths shareof the property in question by right of donation. ' She died intestate- and unmarried, leaving four sisters, Letchimi (fee second plaintiff),Sivakami, Meenatohi (fee fourth defendant), and Valliammai, andtwo brothers, Eandiah and Velupillai. It is common groundbetween fee parties that the two toothers did not succeed. Of the
( 244 )
1914.,
Ds Sakpayo
A.J.
Kuddiar tSinnar
four sisters, the first two were at that time unmarried, and the last'two were married and dowried. The question is, whetherNthe twounmarried sisters alone succeeded to the property of the deceasedPonatchi to the exclusion of the married sisters. There is noexpress rule of the point in the TeBawalamai, nor is there anydecision directly bearing on it. The question has, therefore, to bedecided on general principles. One general rule of the TeBawalamaiis that males succeed to males and females to females, andaccordingly it was held in Thambar v. Chinnatamby1 that, wherean unmarried woman left a married sister and brothers, the sistersucceeded to the exclusion of the brothers. Another rule is thatas among the females themselves, if the deceased was dowried,which in this connection means the same thing as married, hermarried sisters exclude the unmarried sisters; but I can find nosupport for the contention that in the. case of the deceased being .unmarried the unmarried sisters exclude the married sisters. Thelearned Commissioner, however, considers that the latter propositionfollows as a natural corollary from the rule just stated. I do notsee . how this can be a corollary of the rule at all; it is rather thereverse of it. At the argument of this appeal, section 12 of theTesawalamai was also referred to, but it has to do with successionto the parents, and has no bearing on the present question. I amof opinion that as regards succession to an unmarried woman, thefirst general rule above-mentioned should have full effect, and itshould be held that females, whether married or not, succeed to theunmarried female. Consequently the fourth defendant, who is thewife of the third defendant, is entitled to an equal share with thesecond plaintiff, viz., l/16th of the land. This was the only disputebetween the parties, though the plaintiffs prayed for declaration oftitle to certain other shades which were not in dispute.
The appeal of the third and fourth defendants is allowed, and thedecree appealed against is set aside and the plaintiffs’ action dis-missed, without prejudice, however, to their rights to any sharesother than the 1 / 16th share to whch I find the fourth defendantentitled. The plaintiffs should pay the costs of the third and fourth
defendants in the Court below and in this Court.
Appeal allowed.
♦ i
i {1903) 4 Tomb. 60.