137-NLR-NLR-V-51-ROMANIS-Appellant-and-HARMANISSA-et-al-Respondents.pdf
BASNAYAKJ2 J.—Romania v. Harcmav.hta•'>7-5
1950Present: Windham J. and Basnayake J.ROMANIS, Appellant.and HARAMANTSSA cl at., RespondentsS. C. 341—D.C. Regalia, 4,615
Kandyan Law—Deed of gift—Revacabilily—Kandi/a'i Lav> Ordinance; No. 39 of1938.
A Kandyan deed of gift oxecuted prior to 1st January, 1939, is, subject tocertain exceptions, revocable.
^LpPEAL from a judgment of the District. Court, Kega.Ha.
V. A. Kandiah, with T. K. Kandaswamy, for plaintiff-appellant.
E. B. Wikramanayake, K.C., with C. E. S. Perera, for defendant-
respondents.
Cvr. <idv. vull.
March 30, 1950. Basnayake J.—
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Kogailaholding that a doed of revocation of a deed of gift executed by oneBandiya is valid and effectively revokes the gift made by him. Shortlythe facts are as follows :—
One Pallewalayalage Bandiya made a gift of certain lands to his flee,children by deed No. 7819 of 11th March, 1911, attested by D.
Fernando, Notary Public. The material portion of that deed reads :“ I hereby gift grant and assign the said premises subject to mylife fhterest in them unto my affectionate children PallewalayalageLexsa, Pallewalayalage Haramanissa, Pallewalayalage Thepanissa,Pallewalayalage Allissa and Pallewalayalage Romanissa all of Ambu-angala aforesaid, for and in consideration of the love and affection Ibear for them and other generous reasons more particularly inexpectation of succour and assistance from them. Wherefore thesaid donees aro hereby empowered to have and to hold the said premiseswith all my right title and interest in them subject to my life interestand to the injunction herein contained. The said donees shall notsell mortgage exchange or otherwise alienate the said premises norshall they lease them for a period oxcoeding one year. At their deaththe said premises shall devolve on their heirs executors administratorsand assigns to bo held and possessed by them for ever or to be dealtwith as they please.”
By deed No. 3532 of 5th July 1943, attested by R. V. Dedigama, NotaryPublic, Bandiya revoked the above deed in the following terms:—
i: Whereas I the said Pallewelayalage Bandiya by Deed of GiftNo. 7819 dated 11th March, 1911, attested by D. G. Fernando, NotaryPublic, donated, granted, conveyed and assigned subject to the termsand conditions set forth in the said deed the lands mentioned in theschedule hereto to Pallewelayalage Leisa, Pallewelayalage Haramanisa,Pallewelayalage Thepanisa, Pallewelayalage Allisa, and PallewelayalageRotnanisa, all of Ambrangala aforesaid subject to a life interest in myfavour.
BASNAYAKE J.—Romanis v. Harumanism
'*70
And whereas I the said Pallewelayalage Bandiya am desirous ofrevoking, annulling anu making void the said Deed of Gift No. 78Id-dated 11th March, 1911, attested by I). G. Fernando, Notary Public.
Now Know Ye and These Presents witness that 1 the said Pallewela-yalage Bandiya do hereby revoke, annul and make void the said deed*of gift No. 7819 dated 11th March, 1911, attested by D. G. Fernando*Notary Public.”
The question that arises for decision is whether the revocation of deed.No. 7819 is valid or not. On the question of revoeability of gifts Armourcontains the following passage1 :
‘ “All deeds or gifts,” says Sawers, “excepting those made t&priests and temples whether conditional or unconditional, are revocableby tho Donor in his life time. ” ’ (Section 3.)
“ A revocable deed of gift becomes null and void under variouscircumstances.
1. If the Donor did by a subsequent Deed revoke the formerDeed. ” (Section 4.)
To the case of Bologna v. Punchi Mahalmeya1 the Full Bench of thisCourt has held that tho general rule is clear that deeds of gift are revocablein Kandyan Law and that before a particular deed is held to beexceptional to this rule it should be shown that “ tho circumstanceswhich constitute nonrovocability appear most clearly on the face of thedeed itself.”
The above view is consistent with that expressed earlier in Kiri Ifenickav. Cau Halo, tfc others2 where a Full Bench held that a ronunciation oftho right to revoke expressed on tho face of tho deed makes it irrevocable..
The law as stated in these eases has been consistently followed since.-The deed in question in the instant case is therefore revocable. There-are numerous decisions of this Court on this point and it is unnecessary*to recapitulate all of them hero. The later authorities are all collected-in the cases of Dhamialingam v. Kumarihamy et al.3 and Ukhu Banda v.Paulis Singho *..
The Kandyan Law Ordinance, No. 39 of 1938, which enacts the law:applicable to Kandyan deeds of gift does not apply to deeds executedbefore 1st .January, 1939, and need not therefore be discussed for thepurpose of this case.
For the above reasons we agree with the conclusion of the learnedDistrict Judge.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.■»
Windham J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
1 Armour's Grammar of tho Kandyan Law [Perern's) pp. 90-91.
Ramanathan's Reports, 1803-6$, p. 195.
Lorens'* Reports, 1358-59, p. 70.
4 (19i6j27 1V. L. R. 8.
4 (1926) 27 X. L. R. 449.
PRINTED AT TUK CEYLON GOVERNMENT PRESS. COLOMBO