Janak De Silva, J.

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (Appellant) instituted this Aquilian action against the Defendants-Appellants-Respondents (Respondents) seeking a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/= in damages for injuries suffered due to an acid attack. The Respondents admitted the acid attack but contended that it was in the exercise of their right of private defense. According to the Respondents, it was the Appellant who first attacked the Respondents and their children. The Respondents made a claim-in-reconvention for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/= in damages for the injuries they suffered due to the attack by the Appellant.

The learned District Judge entered judgment as prayed for by the Appellant. Aggrieved by this judgment, the Respondents appealed to the Civil Appellate High Court of Sabaragamuwa Province holden in Ratnapura (High Court) which set aside the judgment of the District Court and dismissed the action of the Appellant.

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

1. Have the learned High Court Judges erred in not taking into consideration the vital evidence presented in the District Court and holding against the Appellant?

2. Have the learned High Court Judges erred in not taking into consideration the vital evidence presented in the District Court, especially the judgments marked Z1 and Z2 and holding against the Appellant?

3. If all or any of the above questions of law are answered in the Appellant’s favour, is the Appellant entitled to the reliefs prayed for in his plaint?

4. In a Lex Aquilian action is the Respondent liable to pay damages if the Respondent can justify his actions as being lawful?

Before proceeding to examine these questions let me briefly set out the respective factual positions of the parties.

Version of the Appellant

At the time of this incident, the Respondents and their children were occupying the staff quarters of a particular tea, rubber and coconut estate in Godakawela. They were living in the staff quarters although the services of the 1^st Respondent, as the Field Officer of this estate, had been terminated in 2000. During this period, the Appellant was employed as the watcher/labourer in this estate.

There was animosity between the parties. The Respondents had made several complaints to the Police against the Appellant. On 25.05.2005 at or around 4.00 p.m., the Appellant went to a stream in the neighbourhood to have a bath. On his way back, near the house of the Respondents, someone hit him with a blunt weapon on the back of his head.

The Appellant almost lost consciousness and was in a state of daze. When he regained full consciousness, he found himself inside the Respondent’s house with blood on his face. Then he attempted to get to his feet, at which point the 1^st Respondent threw acid on his face. The Appellant fell to the ground and shouted for water, and then the 1^st Respondent poured something strong into his mouth, which the Appellant spat out.

As the Appellant pushed the 1^st Respondent in an attempt to get to his feet, someone threw acid at him again. The Appellant later learnt that it was the 2^nd Respondent, the wife of the 1^st Respondent, who threw acid at him the second time. The Appellant stumbled out of the house. With great difficulty, the Appellant tried to make his way towards his house when he heard his wife’s voice. He shouted warning her not to go to the 1^st Respondent’s house and then lost consciousness.

The Appellant was blinded by the acid attack. At the time of this incident, he was 52 years old and a father of three children. His eldest son was 19 years old. As a result of his father’s impairment, the son was forced to abandon his vocational training and engage in casual labour to feed the family. The second child was 16 and was studying for her second attempt at the GCE O/L Examination, which she had to give up. The youngest was 12 years old and at the time of the proceedings in the District Court she was being supported by relatives.

As a result of the injur