004-NLR-NLR-V-25-SILINDA-v.-PANNIE.pdf
1922.
( 12 )
Present : Emus J.
SILINDA v. PANNIE.130^0, RKegalla, 17,791.
Ordinance No, 3 of 1852f s, 2—Diga marriage—Does Ordinance enabledaughter to inherit service paraveni lands from father, in spite ofdiga marriage.
Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1852 merely restored to femalesthe right to inherit service paraveni lands, which, before theOrdinance, on a failure of male heirs, had reverted to the Crown.The Ordinance does not enable diga married daughters to claimby inheritance such lands.
Tisseveresitoghe (with him R. G, Fonseka), for appellant.
R.L. Pereira, for respondent.
September 22, 1922, Ennis J.
In this action the plaintiff claimed one-fourth share of a certainland. He1 claimed by right of succession to his father Appua.The defendant said that the plaintiff was not a son of Appua ; and,secondly, if he were a son of Appua, then she, the defendant,although she had married in diga, would be entitled to share withhim in succession by virtue of the provisions of section 2 of Ordi-nance No. 3 of 1852.
On the question of the legitimacy of the plaintiff there is evidencethat both plaintiff and the defendant were the children of Appuaand Lapa. The defendant admits that her father and mother werelegally married. Section 112 of the Evidence Ordinance raises aconclusive presumption with regard to the legitimacy of all thechildren of the marriage, a presumption which there is nothingwhatever in the case to rebut. The learned Judge is, thereforeright in holding that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Appua.
On the second question it is to be observed that the. OrdinanceNo. 3 of 1852 merely restored to females the right to inherit serviceparaveni lands, which, before the Ordinance, on a failure of maleheirs, had reverted to the Grown. The defendant then acquiredunder this Ordinance the privilege of succeeding to her father’sestate. She had that privilege, and on her marriage in diga for-feited her rights. The forfeiture has nothing to do with theestablishment of the privilege. It is something which happens afterthe privilege has been acquired. The Ordinance, therefore, has noapplication to the pTesent case, and the learned Judge is right infinding in favour of the plaintiff.
The appeal is dimissed with costs.
'JT'HE facts appear from the judgment
Appeal dismissed.