Obeyesekere, J

1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29th June 2018. Leave to appeal was granted on 18th March 2019 on three ques ons of law which are set out in paragraph 20 of this judgment.

The posi on of the parties

2) The Plaintiffs – Respondents – Appellants [the Plaintiffs] filed ac on in the District Court of Maho on 3rd November 1990. In their plaint, they stated as follows:

(a) The 1st Plaintiff was issued Permit No. 48445 dated 7th August 1963 under the provisions of the Land Development Ordinance in respect of a paddy land in extent of 2A morefully referred to in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint;

(b) The 2nd Plaintiff was issued Permit No. 63161 dated 25th June 1970 under the provisions of the Land Development Ordinance in respect of a land in extent of 3A 2R 5P morefully referred to in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint;

(c) The said lands were situated adjoining each other and the Plaintiffs have been in con nuous possession of the lands referred to in the said permits for a period of over 25 years;

(d) In November 1989, the Defendant – Appellant – Respondent [the Defendant] had forcibly entered the southern por on of their land and commenced cul va ng the said extent of land;

(e) Pursuant to a complaint made by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant had been directed by the Divisional Secretary to vacate the land encroached by him;

(f) The Defendant had once again forcibly entered the said land in September 1990 and cul vated the said land;

(g) Notwithstanding a direc ve by the Land Commissioner to vacate the said land, the Defendant is a emp ng to forcibly enter the land and cul vate the said land.

3) The Plaintiffs had accordingly sought the following relief:

4) The Defendant denied that he has forcibly entered the land of the Plaintiffs and stated that he has been in occupa on of the land that he is alleged to have encroached for over 25 years. He stated further that he has been issued a permit in 1980 in respect of the said land, in extent of 2A, morefully set out in the Schedule to the answer. This permit was an annual permit in that it was valid only for a period of one year, and had not been extended.

5) Pursuant to the filing of ac on, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had forcibly entered the said land and was in permanent occupa on of the said land. The Plaintiffs therea er filed an amended plaint on 5th July 1993 to reflect the above posi on and prayer (w) of the plaint was amended to read as follows –

Issues and the trial before the District Court

6) The case proceeded to trial on the amended plaint with the Plaintiffs raising inter alia the following issues, numbered as 1, 2, 3 and 16, respec vely:

7) Thus, even though in the prayer to the plaint, the Plaintiffs had only sought to be declared as the owner of the lands referred to in the permits, and did not seek an order to eject the Defendant, prayer (w) had been amended in the aforemen oned manner seeking a declara on that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the said lands. The first two issues raised by the Plaintiffs drew a nexus to the permits issued to them, and with Issue No. 16, made it clear that the ejectment of the Defendant was being sought in accordance with the rights conferred on the Plaintiffs by the said permits. The flaw in the prayer to the plaint had been rec fied by raising issues having a nexus to the rights of the Plaintiffs under the permits and their consequen al right to the ejectment of the Defendant. As pointed out by G.P.S. De Silva, J [as he then was] in Hanaffi v. Nallamma [(1998) 1 Sri LR 73], “Once issues are framed the case which the court has to hear and determine becomes crystallized in the issues and the pleadings recede to the background.”

8) The 1st Plaintiff, the Surveyor who prepared Commission Plan No. 4393, an officer from the Land Commissioner’s Department and two Grama Niladhari Officers gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant gave evidence on his behalf and led the