JAYASINGHE APPUHAMILAGE ANURA VS. LIYANAGE SHANTHAPRIYA LALITH KUMARA

• Jurisdiction: Sri Lanka
• Case Number: 2017SCLR10C2013Y
• Citation: 2017SCLR10C2013Y
• Date: 20 March 2017
• Court: Supreme Court (Sri Lanka)
• Type of Document: Unreported judgment

1

JAYASINGHE APPUHAMILAGE ANURA

VS.

LIYANAGE SHANTHAPRIYA LALITH KUMARA

S.C. Appeal No. 10/2013
SC/HCCA/LA/511/2012
HCCA Kegalle 831/2011
D.C. Kegalle 6932/L

In the matter of an Application for Leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 127 and 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5c of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provision) Act No, 54 of 2006

Jayasinghe Appuhamilage Anura
Jayasinghe Ambawela of
No. 58, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha,
Kegalle.

PLAINTIFF

Vs.

Liyanage Shanthapriya Lalith Kumara
Liyanage of
No. 50, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha,
Kegalle.

DEFENDANT

AND


Jayasinghe Appuhamilage Anura
Jayasinghe Ambawela of
No. 58, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha,
Kegalle.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

Vs.

2

Liyanage Shanthapriya Lalith Kumara
Liyanage of
No. 50, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle.

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

AND NOW BETWEEN


Liyanage Shanthapriya Lalith Kumara
Liyanage of
No. 50, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle.

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-PETITIONER

Vs.

Jayasinghe Appuhamilage Anura
Jayasinghe Ambawela of
No. 58, Edwin Wijerathna Mawatha, Kegalle.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT

BEFORE: Priyasath Dep P.C., C.J.,
B. P. Aluwihare P.C., J. &
Anil Gooneratne J.

COUNSEL: Nuwan Bopage with Lahiru Welgama and Kennady Kodikara for the Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner

M.S.A. Saheed with A.M. Hussain for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent


WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER FILED ON: 04.04.2013

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT FILED ON: 24.04.2013

3

ARGUED ON: 21.02.2017

DECIDED ON: 20.03.2017

GOONERATNE J.

This was an action for a declaration of title to lot 21 shown in plan No. 2036 of 25.07.1965 (P8) of Surveyor Baddewela, by which the larger land called Raddala Estate was subdivided into 46 lots. The material placed before this court indicates that the said lot 21 which is the disputed small portion of land is about 2 1/2 perches. It would be necessary to understand the facts of this case as the Plaintiff and Defendant both claim lot 21, the above small portion of land (strip of land).

Plaintiff purchased lot 20 by deed No. 1107 (iv2) of 19.02.1985. It is stated that Plaintiff built a house on it. It is the Plaintiff's case that on purchase of lot 20 he erected a fence and possessed it within his boundaries. It is also stated by Plaintiff that he also purchased lot 21 the disputed lot by deed P2 No. 1524 of 19.03.1997. Plaintiff amalgamated the two lots and possessed both lots as the same land. On purchase lot 21 Plaintiff removed the barbed wire and the fence on the eastern boundaries of lot 20. (keeping some old trees) to have access to lot 21. What the Plaintiff complained of that point of time is that the

4

Plaintiff being a Bank Office was away from the land in dispute on 06.02.2003 to 07.02.2003, and during his absence the Defendant illegally erected a new fence on the eastern boundary of Plaintiff's lot No. 20, which covered the disputed lot No. 21. In short what has happened as urged by the Plaintiff is that the fence he removed as above was erected by the Defendant on the eastern boundary of Plaintiff's lot No. 20 to prevent the Plaintiff enjoying both lots 21 and 20.

Both the Defendant and Plaintiff are owing adjoining lots to each other. Defendant own lot 22 in plan 2036. Defendant claim lot 22 on the pedigree relied by him. The Defendants claim to lot 21 is not on a deed but based on prescription.

The learned District Judge delivered Judgment on 21.01.2011 dismissing Plaintiff's action. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment the Plaintiff lodged an appeal to the Civil Appellate High Court of Kegalle and the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Judgement of the District Court. Supreme Court granted leave on about 23.01.2013 on the...