The Supreme Court judgment in SC Appeal No. 38/2014 is a significant decision dealing with probate law, revocation of wills, and evidentiary standards under Sri Lankan law. Here’s an analysis of the case and the ruling:

Key Facts:
• The appellant, Karunawathie Jayamaha, sought probate of a Last Will (No. 962 dated 24.05.1989) purportedly executed by her brother Jayamaha Mudalige Kamalasairi Mahinda.
• The deceased had:
• Previously married the 7th Respondent, with whom he had a child (9th Respondent).
• Later allegedly married the 8th Respondent under Muslim Law.
• The Last Will left the deceased’s property to his siblings and the 8th Respondent, but excluded the 7th and 9th Respondents.
• The original will was missing at the time of probate application; only a certified copy and protocol were produced.
• The 7th Respondent challenged the Will on the basis of:
• Forgery, and/or
• Revocation by destruction, and/or
• Invalidity due to a subsequent marriage under Section 6 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance.

Issues for Determination:

The Supreme Court granted leave on two main questions:
1. Did the Court of Appeal fail to properly consider the principles of revocation of wills?
2. Did the Court of Appeal fail to appreciate the significance of the marriage certificate relating to the second marriage?

Legal Principles Considered:

1. Revocation of a Will (Presumption of Destruction):
   • Presumption: If a will last known to be in the testator’s possession is missing after death, it is presumed destroyed by the testator animo revocandi (with intent to revoke).
   • Rebuttal of Presumption:
   • The will was last seen in an unlocked cupboard one day before the testator’s death.
   • The death occurred during the 1988–89 insurrection; the house was ransacked.
   • There was no evidence that the testator had destroyed the will.
   • Hence, the presumption was rebutted: the will was lost, not revoked.
2. Effect of Subsequent Marriage on Validity of Will:
   • Section 6 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance invalidates a will made before a valid subsequent marriage.
   • However:
   • The alleged second marriage was conducted before the first marriage had been legally dissolved.
   • The second marriage, under Muslim Law, was invalid under Sri Lankan law (see Natalie Abeysundere v Christopher Abeysundere [1991] 1 SLR 26).
   • Therefore, the Last Will remained valid.

Findings and Reasoning of the Supreme Court:
• Forgery claim was not proved by the Respondents.
• The Last Will was properly attested and executed, as evidenced by the notary and attesting witnesses.
• Failure to produce the original will did not invalidate the application; probate can be granted based on a protocol or certified copy (as per Weerasinghe v Nagahawatte [1984] 1 SLR 420).
• The presumption of revocation was not applicable, given the specific violent and chaotic circumstances surrounding the testator’s death.
• The Court of Appeal erred in disregarding both the proper evidentiary standard and the legal consequences of the second marriage’s invalidity.

Outcome:
• Appeal allowed.
• Judgments of the District Court (2002) and Court of Appeal (2012) were set aside.
• Probate was granted to the Appellant on Will No. 962.

Significance of the Judgment:
1. Clarifies evidentiary standards in probate proceedings where the original will is missing.
2. Reaffirms the rebuttable nature of the presumption of revocation.
3. Reinforces the requirement of lawful marriage for Section 6 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance to apply.
4. Emphasizes that issues not raised at trial cannot be introduced at appeal unless they arise from admitted or adjudicated facts (Setha v Weerakoon [1948] 49 NLR 225).