( 242 )
SINNO APPU v. ABEYWICKREME at al.
D. C., Galle, 4,349.
Devolution of property of bastard, dying intestate—Heirs of bastard—Right ofmother.
A bastard died intestate before the passing of the Ordinance No. 15 of1876, leaving him surviving his mother and a brother and sister. TheCrown waived all claim to the property left by the intestate.
Held that, in the circumstances, whether the devolution was governedby the North or the South Holland Law of Inheritance, the mother mustbe held entitled to such proporty, to the exclusion of the illegitimatebrother and sister.
HE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment ofBonser, C.J.
DomhoT8t and Wendt, for appellant.
Sam-payo, for respondent.
Ramandthan, S.-G., for the Crown.
In this case an interesting question arises as to the succession toproperty of a bastard, who died intestate leaving him survivinghis mother and a brother and sister.
The District Judge held that the property of the intestate wasdivisible into two parts, that the mother took onc-half and theintestate’s illegitimate brother and sister took between them theother half. The mother has appealed.
The intestate died in 1876 before the passing of the OrdinanceNo. 15 of 1876, which provides that, in all cases of succession whichare not specially provided for by that Ordinance, the law ofNorth Holland is to prevail. Before the passing of that Ordinancethere seems to have been considerable doubt as to what was thelaw in such matters, whether it was the law of North Hollandor the law of South Holland.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, in 1822, held that in effect the law ofNorth Holland must govern; but some doubt was thrown on thatdecision in a more recent case in 1871 at the time when ChiefJustice Creasy presided over this Court. If the law of NorthHolland is to apply, there is no doubt that the mother is entitledto the whole. If the law of South Holland applies, it may beurged that the Crown is entitled. That seems to have been theopinion of (Irotius. But it is clear that whatever law prevails,the illegitimate brother and sister cannot be entitled to any share.
The Crown lias appeared by the Solicitor-General, who attendedin person to waive, in this particular case, all claim on the part ofthe Crown.
Under these circumstances, it being admitted that the childrencould not under any state of the law be entitled, we decidethat the mother is entitled to the whole. It would seem thatthat is the view taken of the right of a mother of an illegitimatechild in the Cape, where the law is the same as the law here,the Cape and this Island being both under the 'jurisdiction ofthe Dutch East- India Company, and both governed by theCharter of 1661.
I would wish to add that there is in respect to this the authorityof a Dutch Jurist, Van der Vorm, that even under the South HollandLaw the mother would be entitled to the whole of the inheritance.
Withers, J.—I agree.
SINNO APPU v. ABEYWICKREME et al