132-NLR-NLR-V-57-SOOSAIPILLAI-et-al-Appellants-and-SOOSAIPILLAI-Respondent.pdf
J956Present: Basnayake C.J., Gunasekara S'., Pulle J.,
de Silva J. and Sanson! J.
SOOiSAIPILLAI it at., Appellants, and SOOSAIPILLAI,Respondent
S. C. 110—D. C. Jaffna, 5,60S
Thcsavutunini—Propcrtj of deceased wife—Rights of husband-—Sale by sun—Rightsoj t•entice—Cap. of, Part I, as. 9 and If—JaJJ.iu Matrimonial Rights andInheritance Ordinance {Cap. IS), ss. I, II, 3T, 33, 40.
Sections 0 ami 11 of Part I of tlio Tesawalamai (Cap. 51) apply to tlio estateof a spouso married before, oiul dying after, 17th July 1011 (tlio duto ofconimcncemciit of the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance Ordinance).Section 37 of the Ordinanco has no application to such a ease.
j^LPPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna. This casewas referred to a Bench of five Judges under section 51 of the CourtsOrdinance.
One Anasipillai. who was married to the plaintiff in 1901, died in August-1938 leaving a major son, Tirnchelvar. In 1941 Tirucliclvar sold certainlands to the 1st defendant purporting to claim them by right ofinheritance from his mother Anasipillai. In the present action theplaintiff, who did not re-marry, claimed the right of possession of tliolands left by Anasipillai, by virtue of section 11 of Part I of theTesawalamai (Cap. 51).
C. licnyanalhan, with M. Shanmuyalinyam, for Defendant-Appellants.
S. Thanyarajah, for Plaint iff-Respondent.
Cur. ado. vult.
July 4, 1956. Basxayake, C.J.—
The only question that arises for determination on this appeal iswhether sections 9 and 11 of Part I of the Tesawalamai apply to thoestate of a spouse married before 17th July 1911, the date of commence-ment of the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance Ordinance(hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), dying after that date. Thisvery question has been decided in the affirmative in the case of Siva mi-pitta i v. Soosaipittai 1 and I am in entire agreement with the opinionexpressed by Windham J. in that case.
A contrary view appears to have been taken by de Kretser J. in theearlier ease of Ambalavannar v. Ponnamma and (tie Secretary, DistrictCourt, Colombo '1, wherein he has expressed the opinion that sections 9and 11 of-the Tesawalamai have been repealed by section 40 of theOrdinance.
1 {1917) 19 .v. L. R. S3.> (1911) 20 G. L. W. 1 at I.
23LVir
lJ. X. b 07342—1,592 (S/56)
The latter case cannot- be regarded as in point as the Judgment docsnot state that the deceased spouse was married before the Ordinancecame into force. The Tcsawalamai is undoubtedly repealed by section40 of the Ordinance, but only in respect of those to whom the Ordinanceapplies and then only in so far as it is inconsistent with the Ordinance.
am unable to ag“ec with the vieiv taken by de Kret-ser J. if lie intendedthat- section 40 affected the rights of those who fall outside the ambitof the Ordinance, viz., those who were married before its commencement.
The facts on which the above question arises for decision arc as follows.One Anasipillai who was married to the plaintiff in 1901 died in August193S leaving a major son by name Tinichelvar who died in 1944. Bydeed No. 2230 of 19th November 1941 (D1 ) Tiruchelvar sold the landsin dispute to the 1st defendant claiming them by light- of inheritancefrom his mother. The plaintiff, who has not re-married, claims theright of possession of the lands left by Anasipillai by virtue of section 1 Lof Part I of the Tcsawalamai.
Learned counsel for the appellant-contended that the precision thatapplies to the instant ease is section 37 of the Ordinance, and not section
of Part T of the Tcsawalamai. He argued that the limitation imposedby section 14 of the Ordinance is confined to Part III of it and has noapplication to Parts IV and V and (hat section 37, which occurs in PartIV, is therefore not governed by section 14, which reads as follows :—
“ The following sections of this Ordinance shall apply to the estateof such persons only as shall die after the commencement of thisOrdinance, and shall be then unmarried, or if married shall have beenmarried after the commencement- of this Ordinance. ”
The words “following sections of this Ordinance” are wide enough toextend to all the sections that follow section J4, and there is nothing inthe context of that section or the sections that follow it which has the clfcctof confining the limitation imposed by it to the sections in Part Ilf ofthe Ordinance. Those words in my opinion are wide enough to catchup all the succeeding sections, including sections 37 and 3S though theybe in Part IV. Both Parts ITT and TV deal with the estates of deceasedpersons.
Learned counsel also laid great emphasis on the heading to Part- Ilfof the Ordinance. He contended that the heading Inheritance ”confines the application of section 14 to Part TTI. Headings in a statutedo not always control the text. Headings in statutes belong to twoclasses 1—headings which can be read grammatically into the groupof sections to which they relate and headings which have no directconnection with the language of such sections. Headings of the firstclass constitute a sort of preamble2 to the sections immediately followingthem and arc not used in more recent, statutes. Headings of the latterclass arc generally regarded as having been inserted for the purpose ofconvenience of reference, ami not as being intended to control the intcr-pictation of the sections grouped under each heading as in the ease of
1 Ther.IS A’. A. It. S'J'J ttt
* Jlarliit* r. I'otcler, {lU'JO} – J. G. (/'. G •) 7
S3 I
■{Lfytirartlcna Stri Xivasn
I lie Ordinance under consideration. Headings may be looked at onlyfor the purpose of resolving any doubt as to ambiguous words. Theycannot be used to give a different effect to clear words of n section. Inthe instant case the sect ion is in my opinion clear, and the heading cannotlie called in aid to give it a different meaning.,
It is also evident from section 4 (hat the Ordinance docs not apply topersons married before its commencement except where it is otherwise,expressly provided therein.
For the above reasons I am o£ opinion that section H7 of the Ordinancehas no application to the instant case.'
Learned counsel’s contention is therefore not entitled to succeed.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
CiW.ASKKATtA. .1.—T agree.
TVr.i.E, .T.—I agree,i) E Srr.VA. -I.—T agree.
*-fppral di*))) i&sctl;
Sansonr. J.—T agree.