IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for leave to Appeal under and in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution read with Section 5C (1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990 as amended by High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act, No. 54 of 2006.

SC/Appeal No. 0027/2020 R.M. Kamal Kumara Gokarella SC HCCA/LA /236/2019 “Thushara” Galagamuwa, Gokarella.

HCCA/Kurunegala Case No. 120/2016 (F)

D.C. Kurunegala Case No.

7007/L PLAINTIFF vs R.M. Bhadra Kumari Gokarella, Dambulla Road, Gokarella.

DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN R.M. Kamal Kumara Gokarella.

“Thushara” Galagamuwa, Gokarella.

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT vs R.M. Bhadra Kumari Gokarella, Dambulla Road, Gokarella.

DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT And Now Between R.M. Kamal Kumara Gokarella.

“Thushara” Galagamuwa, Gokarella.

(Appearing by his Power of Attoreny holder Gonaduwage Thushitha Jeewani Deepthika of “Thushara” Galagamuwa, Gokarella.)

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - PETITIONER vs R.M. Bhadra Kumari Gokarella, Dambulla Road, Gokarella.

DEFENDANT -RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT BEFORE : Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J.

Menaka Wijesundera, J &

M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

COUNSEL : Sapumal Bandara with Vishmi Yapa Abeywardene and Ms. Gangulali de Silva for the Plaintiff– Appellant-

Appellant.

Lakshman Perera, PC with Shashi Jayasekara for the Defendant – Respondent – Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 14.07.2025 DECIDED ON : 30.10.2025 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

Introduction.

The Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff– Appellant’) instituted an action in the District Court of Kurunegala seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Deeds No. 14370 and 14371 are null and void.

The father of both the Plaintiff-Appellant and the Defendant-Respondent, K. B. Gokarella, was the owner of the land more fully described in the First Schedule to the plaint. By Deed of Gift No. 707, attested by Ravi Jayawardena, Notary Public, and executed on February 29, 1992, K. B. Gokarella gifted the said land to the Plaintiff- Appellant. Subsequently, the said deed was revoked by Deed No. 900, and the same land was subdivided into three lots by Plan No. 948 dated December 30, 1994, prepared by H. Wijayathunga, Licensed Surveyor, leaving out the road reservation as Lot No. 2. Lot No. 1, in extent of 33.5 perches, was transferred to the Defendant-Respondent- Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Defendant-Respondent’), the Plaintiff’s elder sister, by Deed of Transfer No. 901 executed on February 25, 1995, attested by R. M. B. Rathnayake, Notary Public. Lot No. 3, the remaining portion of the same extent, was gifted to the Plaintiff-Appellant by Deed of Gift No. 902, dated February 25, 1995, attested by the same Notary Public, retaining the right to revoke.

According to the Plaintiff-Appellant, Deed No. 902 was purportedly revoked on June 11, 1997, by Deed No. 14370, attested by U. Rathnawathie, Notary Public, and on the same day the identical rights were conveyed to the Defendant-Respondent by the purported Deed of Transfer No. 14371, attested by the same Notary, executed just eight days prior to the death of his father.

The Defendant-Respondent filed her answer dated March 07, 2008, and pleaded that the action instituted by the Plaintiff-Appellant was prescribed. Accordingly, she moved to dismiss the Plaintiff-Appellant’s action.

After trial, the learned District Judge, by judgment dated June 1, 2016, held that Deeds No. 14370 and 14371 were valid in law and that the Plaintiff’s action was prescribed.

Accordingly, the learned District Judge proceeded to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action.

The Plaintiff-Appellant thereupon appealed to the Civil Appellate High Court of Kurunegala, which by its judgment dated May 16, 2019, dismissed the appeal.

The Plaintiff-Appellant sought leave to appeal to this Court against the said judgment, and leave was granted on four questions of law, two set out in paragrap