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 31.03.2015 delivered by the High Court of the Western Province exercising Civil Appellate Jurisdiction at Avissawella in the Case No. WP/HCCA/AVI/1233/2011 (F) and D.C. Avissawella Case No. 2893/SPL under and in terms of Section 05c of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.

S.C. Appeal No. 49/2017 S.C. (H.C.C.A) L.A. Application No. 171/2015 H.C. Case No. Dedigama Group Private Limited, WP/HCCA/GPH/1233/2011(F)

Head Office, D.C. Avissawella Case No. 2893/L No. 12, Dehiwala Road, Maharagama.

PLAINTIFF Vs.

1. Nagoda Manalage Piyasena, 2. Panawalage Hemawathie, Both of No. 522, Minnana, Getaheththa. DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN Dedigama Group Private Limited, Head Office, No. 12, Dehiwala Road, Maharagama.

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT Vs.

1. Nagoda Manalage Piyasena, 2. Panawalage Hemawathie, Both of No. 522, Minnana, Getaheththa.

DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Dedigama Group Private Limited, Head Office, No. 12, Dehiwala Road, Maharagama.

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT –

PETITIONER Vs.

1. Nagoda Manalage Piyasena, 2. Panawalage Hemawathie, Both of No. 522, Minnana, Getaheththa.

DEFENDANTS – RESPONDENTS –

RESPONDENTS Before : Hon. S. Thurairaja, P.C., J.

Hon. Janak De Silva, J.

Hon. Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

Counsel : Kuwera de Zoysa, P.C. with Pasindu Bandara for the Plaintiff – Appellant – Appellant Manohara de Silva, P.C. with Hirosha Munasinghe and Senal Kariyawasam for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants –

Respondent – Respondents Written Submissions : 19.06.2017 and 20.02.2023 by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants – Respondents – Respondents

19.02.2018 and 21.02.2022 by the Plaintiff – Appellant – Petitioner Argued on : 04.04.2024 Decided on : 08.10.2025 Janak De Silva, J.

The Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant (Appellant) instituted this action against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondents (Respondents) seeking a judgment for the specific performance of an agreement to sell. In the alternative, the Appellant prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/=.

The learned District Judge of Avissawella dismissed the action. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of the Western Province exercising Civil Appellate jurisdiction at Avissawella (High Court) which was dismissed.

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

(1) Did the High Court Judges err in law, by failing to analyze the law applicable in the context of specific performance in the original court action filed by the Appellant in seeking a judgment under the law of contracts against the Respondents?

(2) Did the High Court Judges err in law by not considering the fact that there was no issue raised at the trial in the original court or at the hearing of the appeal in the High Court as to the dismissing of the action of the Appellant for not depositing the balance purchase money of the transaction at the outset of filing the action in the original court?

(3) Did the High Court Judges err in law by not exercising their judicial mind in to the fact that which party has repudiated the contract between the two parties based on the sales agreement marked as P5 at the trial in the Original Court?

(4) Did the High Court Judges err in law by considering that specific performance of the contract between the parties was an inappropriate remedy when there is an uncertainty regarding the providing a road access to the land sought to be blocked out in terms of clause 5 of the agreement?

Factual Matrix One Padmini Ranasinghe, being the original owner of the corpus forming the subject matter of the agreement to sell, transferred an undivided 1/3 share thereof to the 1^st Respondent, another undivided 1/3 share to the 2^nd Respondent and the remaining undivided 1/3 share to one Kudamadurage Sitthi, the mother of the 1^st Respondent.

By her last will, Sitthi beque