( no )1914. wife, where there are children, just as a diga wife has a life interestDb 8am*'ayo the acquired property of her deceased husband in the event ofA.J.there being children. Sawers* Digest, p. 2; Manika v. Horatala: 1
TikiriNila Henaya v. Dissanayake Appuhamy. * I do not think that the
Banda v. argument, to .the effect that Sawers' Digest, p. 8, read with Sawers***** 'Digest, p. 16, indicates that the rule is applicable only to a case where
.there are no surviving children, is well founded. These passages,when closely examined, will be found to support the contrary proposi-tion. For the passage at page 8, after stating that the husband is heirto his wife's landdd property, goes on to say that if the wife left ason he would succeed to her estate on the death of the husband,which, in other words, means that in the case supposed the husbandhas the enjoyment of the property during life. A son is, of course,mentioned only by way of illustration, and it is obvious that the lawthere laid down contemplates the case of children generally. Thecomment on this passage by Marshall, p. 339, only goes to the extentof modifying it by excluding from its purview the case of birwtamarried spouses. The passage at page 16 of Savers* Digest appeal'sto me to be not inconsistent with this interpretation of the passageat page 8. For-when it says that the wife's 4< peculiar property ofall description goes to her children and not to her husband, " itapparently speaks only of the dommum of the property, and does notnecessarily imply that the husband has no right of possession of theacquired property. The next paragraph deals with the case of awife dying without children, and lays down the rule that the husbandin that case inherits the acquired property, meaning that thatproperty devolves on him in full right. This, as I above indicated,is I think the point of the decision in Naide Appu v. Pahtigurala(,supra). Lastly, we have the direct judicial authority of Saduwa v,Siri, 3 which we were invited to reconsider, but which I think is acorrect exposition, of the Kandyan law on the point at issue inthis case.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
i 3 S. C. R. 167.
6 .V, L. R. 314.
2 9 Bal. 18.