SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 9699

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 08/11/2011 of the Civil Appeal High Court of Kurunegala in the case No. NWP/HCCA/KUR/120/2004(F)

01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Tilakaratna Banda Waraddana, Wellawa.

02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchiralage Ran Banda Waraddana, Wellawa.

S.C. Appeal No. 105/2012 Plaintiffs S.C.(HC) CALA Application Vs.

No. 532/11

01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Subarath Menike Civil Appeal, High Court of NWP Rangama, Wellawa.

Kurunegala Appeal No.

NWP/HCCA/KUR/120/2004(F)

02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchi Menike Hunupola.

DC Kurunegala Case No.

03.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Sittamma

5094/L/96 Basnayake “Mawatte”, Deliwala, Rambukkana.

04.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Pemawathi Wickremaratne No. 121, Municipal Road, Matale

05.Alkegama Alahakoon Mudiyanselage Wimala Panamaldeniya Kaluhendiwela No.119, Wadakada, Pothuhera Defendants And between

01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Subarath Menike Rangama, Wellawa.

02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchi Menike Hunupola.

03.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Sittamma Basnayake “Mawatte”, Deliwala, Rambukkana.

04.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Pemawathi Wickremaratne No. 121, Municipal Road, Matale

1st to 4th Defendants-Appellants Vs.

01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Tilakaratna Banda Waraddana, Wellawa.

02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchiralage Ran Banda Waraddana, Wellawa. Plaintiff-Respondents

05.Alkegama Alahakoon Mudiyanselage Wimala Panamaldeniya Kaluhendiwela No.119, Wadakada, Pothuhera

5th Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN

01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Tilakaratna Banda Waraddana, Wellawa.

1st Plaintiff-Respondent-

Appellant

02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchiralage Ran Banda (Deceased) Waraddana, Wallawa.

02(A). Jayasundara Mudiyanselage Podimenika (Deceased)

Waraddana, Wellawa.

02(A)(1). Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Abeyratne Bandara Waraddana, Wellawa.

Substituted 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-

Appellant Vs.

01.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Subarath Menike Rangama, Wellava.

02.Hitihamy Mudiyanselage Punchi Menike Hunupola.

03.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Sittamma Basnayake “Mawatte”, Deliwala, Rambukkana.

04.Hithihamy Mudiyanselage Pemawathi Wickremaratne No. 121, Municipal Road, Matale

1-4 Defendant-Appellant-

Respondents

05.Alkegama Alahakoon Mudiyanselage Wimala Panamaldeniya Kuluhendiwela No.119, Wadakada, Pothuhera.

5th Defendant-Respondent-

Respondent Before: Hon. S. Thurairaja, PC, J.

Hon. A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J.

Hon. Janak De Silva, J.

Counsel: Chula Bandara with Lakmini Edirisinghe for the Plaintiff-Respondent-

Appellants Lakshman Perera P.C. with Tharika Jinadasa for the 1st Defendant Appellant-Respondent Instructed by Niluka Dissanayake Written 08.08.2012 and 30.08.2024 by the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Submissions: 16.08.2012 and 12.08.2024 by the 1st Defendant-Appellant Respondent Argued on: 26.07.2024 Decided on: 07.11.2025 Janak De Silva, J.

The 1st Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant and Substituted 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (Plaintiffs) instituted this action against the 1st to 4th Defendants-Appellants-Respondents (Defendants), seeking a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the land described in the schedule to the plaint, delivery of vacant possession thereof to the Plaintiffs and damages until possession is delivered.

The District Court entered judgment as prayed for by the Plaintiffs. The 1st to 4th Defendants appealed.

The Civil Appellate High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court. It was held that the Plaintiffs had failed to identify the corpus as required in a rei vindicatio action.

Leave to appeal has been granted on the following questions of law:

(1) Did the Honorable Judges of the Civil Appeal High Court of Kurunegala err in law by coming to the conclusion that "the land in dispute has sufÏciently been identified by the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents is based completely on an assumption which is not sustainable in law"?

(2) Did the Honorable Judges of the Civil Appeal High Court of Kurunegala err

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top