Back
2025 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 222
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
R. Gurusinghe, S. Premachandra, JJ
Venerable Viharadhipathi Mapalane Ananda Thero – Appellant
Versus
Wavlagala Kusumsiri De Silva Wimalasevana and others – Respondent
CA/ RII 07/2025
Dr. Wijedasa Rajapakse PC with Dasun Nagashena, Rakitha Rajapakse and Shihara Ekanayaka for the Petitioner, instructed by K. Danuka Lakmal. Manoja Gunawardena, instructed by Dilini Chamindika Pathirage for the 3A, 4A, 5th and 8A Defendant-Respondent. Sanjaya Kodithuwakku for the Plaintiff- ppellantRespondent, instructed by Niroshana Perera.
Judicial duty to investigate title is paramount in partition actions; improper settlements undermine judicial integrity and violate legal obligations.
Headnote:(A) Partition Law No. 21 of 1977 - Jurisdiction - Restitutio in integrum under Article 138 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka - Application for revision and Restitutio in integrum sought to set aside previous judgments based on improper settlements and lack of due process. (Paras 1, 12, 25)
(B) Judicial Duty - Duty of the court to investigate title in partition actions - Courts must be satisfied with petitioner's title before granting partition decrees. (Paras 8, 10, 12, 27)
(C) Settlement and its Legality - Court must ensure proper notification and representation of all parties before accepting settlements in partition actions to prevent miscarriages of justice. (Paras 3, 10, 27)
Facts of the case:
The original partition action was dismissed due to failure of evidence regarding the pedigree of parties. A settlement led to a directive for further evidence, but the petitioner contested this settlement as improperly made without adequate notice to all parties.
Findings of Court:
The Court found prior judgments were set aside due to serious procedural flaws, including lack of jurisdiction and improper title investigation procedures.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the settlement in the partition action, and whether the rights of all parties were adequately safeguarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that titles must be fully investigated in partition actions before any decrees are made, settling further that mere private arrangements cannot replace judicial determinations.
Result: Application for Restitutio in integrum allowed, previous judgments set aside.
Dr. Sumudu Premachandra J.
1] The original action is a partition action. On 18/09/2015, the learned Additional District Judge of Galle, on careful consideration of the evidence led in the trial, dismissed the action on the footing that the pedigree of all parties had not been proved. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the said judgment in the Civil Appellate High Court of Galle in Appeal bearing No. SP/HCCA/GA/073/2015 (F). On 17/02/2020, upon settlement reached between the 3A, 4A, and 5th and 8 A Defendant-Respondents at the Civil Appellate High Court in Galle, the said judgment was pro forma set aside, and the learned District Judge was directed to allow the parties to lead evidence on the consolidated pedigree. Thereafter, upon the direction of the learned judges of the Civil Appellate High Court of Galle, the learned District Judge of Galle has made the judgment on 12/12/2023 in compliance with the direction of the Civil Appellate High Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Petitioner now seek to set aside the purported settlement dated 17/02/2020 entered in the Civil Appellate High Court of Galle in Appeal No. SP/HCCA/GA/073/2015 (F), as well as the judgment of the District Court of Galle dated 12/12/2023 in Case No. P/12663.
2] The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent instituted this partition action in the District Court of Galle regarding a land called Pabalinawatta in Dadalla, Galle, against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. During the proceedings, intervening Defendants were added, including the late Venerable Mapalane Ananda Thero (6th Defendant), succeeded by Venerable Dhammaloka Thero (9th Defendant), as part of the temple land had been included in the corpus. The 9th Defendant sought the exclusion of the temple land. The grievance of the Petitioner is that without notifying Venerable Dhammaloka Thero (9th Defendant), a settlement was reached among some parties, and the District Court was directed to enter the judgment accordingly, which is palpably wrong under the law of partition.
3] At the argument, the learned President Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the legality of the settlement and judgment on several grounds: lack of jurisdiction, failure to serve notice on all parties, absence of evidence to support title, and failure to substitute for the deceased 9th defendant who passed away on 18/01/2022 (death certificate annexed as X4). The petitioner also asserts that the corpus includes Sangika property belonging to the temple, as specified under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance. As the current Chief Incumbent of the temple from 17/06/2023 (document annexed as X5), therefore, the Petitioner seeks revision and/or restitution in integrum under
4] The Plaintiff-Appellant Respondent resists the application for restitution in integrum, stating that the Petitioner has failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of restitutio in integrum. The Petitioner is alleged to be guilty of undue delay, has not pursued available legal remedies under Section 48(4) of the Partition Law No. 21 of 1977 or Section 772 of the Civil Procedure Code, and has suppressed material facts from the Court.
5] The 3A, 4A, 5th, and 8A Defendant-Respondent-Respondents state that the application is misconceived in law, constitutes an abuse of court process, and it should be dismissed in limine. They deny the Petitioner's claim that notices were not served on Venerable Dhammaloka Thero, stating that several notices were issued and referenced in Document X2. They say that the Petitioner and his predecessor failed to present their case and clearly demonstrate the negligence.
6] I Now, consider the merits of this case. The Respondents have contended that the Petitioner is not a party to the partition case; thus, there is no availability of restitutio in integrum. In Punchinona Habakkalahewa and other vs Udugama
