063-NLR-NLR-V-16-BANDIRALA-v.-MAIRUMA-NATCHIA.pdf
( 285 )
Present: Lascelles C.J. and Pereira J.
B ANDIE ALA v. MAIRDMA NATCHIA.
247—D. C. Kurunegala, 4,308.
Muhammadan law—Code of 1806 must be followed even if it dashes withprinciples of Muhammadan law.
It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the code of “ SpecialLaws concerning Maura or Mahomedans ” of 1806 even if theprovisions contained therein appear to dash with well-establishedprinciples of Muhammadan law.
r j THE facts appear from the judgment.
De Sampayo, K.C. (with him Talaisingham), for first, second,and third defendants, appellants.
Vernon Grenier, for fourth defendant, respondent, and addeddefendant, respondent.
November 13, 1912. Lascelles C.J.—
This appeal raises certain questions on the Muhammadan law ofsuccession, Uduma Lebbe, the propositus, died leaving a widow,since dead, three daughters (whose interests are vested in theplaintiff), and the fourth defendant and the added party, who arethe daughters of a predeceased daughter.
The learned District Judge has allotted one-eighth share to thewidow, which devolved on her only daughter, the third defendant,who has waived 'her share in favour of the plaintiff.
I do not understand that there is any objection to this part ofthe decree. With regard to the remainder of the estate, the learnedDistrict Judge has allotted three-fourths to the daughters, and thebalance (namely, one-eighth) to the grandchildren. This distri-bution of the estate is impugned as being contrary to the generalprinciples of Muhammadan law, and in particular it is said that thefourth defendant and the added party as grandchildren through adaughter of the propositus have no share in the inheritance.
In the “ Special Laws concerning Maurs or Mahomedans ” thereare many provisions which are difficult to reconcile with the principleslaid down in the standard text books , on Muhammadan law, butthere can be no question with regard to the duty of the Courts inCeylon to give effect to those provisions even if they appear toclash with well-established principles of Muhammadan law.
These “ Special Laws ” embody the rules which the Legislaturehas laid down with regard to the succession to the estates of Muham-madans and other Mndred matters, and where any rule is plain and
IMS.
m*'
IiABOBLLHS
O.J?1
Bandirala«. MairumaNatchia
( 286 )
unambiguous, it is unnecessary to have recourse to the text bookson Muhammadan law.
The question then is simply whether the distribution made by thelearned District Judge is in accordance with the “ Special Laws Mto which I have referred.
In giving three-fourths to the three daughters, the learned DistrictJudge has followed section 6. This section, as Mr. F. H. de "Voshas pointed out in his valuable commentary, is a deviation fromthe rules of the Shafei law, and, indeed, from the general principlesof Muhammadan law, under which the shares of the daughters,however many, should not exceed the “ Koranic two^third.”
But the decision of the learned District Judge is plainly in accord-ance with section 6, and must be upheld. So with regard to theone-eighth allotted to the two grandchildren by a daughter of thepropositus. It may be doubtful whether on the general principlesof Muhammadan law these grandchildren, who trace descentthrough a daughter, are entitled to come in as " residuaries," butsection 82 is a clear authority for the distribution effected by thelearned District Judge.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Pereira J.—I agree.
♦
Appeal dismissed.