Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal by the 2nd plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd plaintiff) on the basis of being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17-12-2010 of the Court of Appeal, where the judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya on 16-10-2001, which was partly in favour of the plaintiffs of the action, was set aside.

When this matter was supported for Special Leave to Appeal before this Court on 17-07-2012, Leave to Appeal was allowed on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 18 (I) to (V) of the petition dated 23-01-2011.

The said questions of law read as follows,

I. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in its findings with regard to the scope and nature of the case of the plaintiffs.

II. Has the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law by arriving at the conclusion that the claims of the both parties were on the basis of prescriptive title.

III. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by failing to appreciate that the appeal related to Lot No. 4 (schedule B) and already Lot 4B (schedule C) had been given to the respondents by the judgment of the District Court.

IV. Has the Court of Appeal misdirected in law by coming to the conclusion that the learned District Judge has placed the burden on the wrong party. V. Did the Court of Appeal err in law by failing to consider that when the respondents claimed rights in Lot No. 4 in D1 and D2 allegedly executed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs it was incumbent of the District Court to come to a finding whether the said deeds related to the corpus.

At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the 2nd plaintiff, as well as that of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the defendant-appellant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants.) This Court also had the benefit of considering the pre-argument, as well as, the post-argument written submissions tendered by the parties, for the purpose of pronouncing this judgment.

The matters that led to the impugned judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal can be summarized in the following manner.

The plaintiffs of the District Court action, including the 2nd plaintiff, instituted an action in form of a vindicatory suit against the defendants, praying for the declaration of title for the two lands morefully described in schedule B and C of their plaint dated 29-12-1993, and also for an order of ejectment of the defendants, and for damages. From the averments of their plaint, they have pleaded title to the said lands based on a final partition decree, as well as on the basis of prescription.

The defendants in their answer have denied the title claimed by the plaintiffs. Having pleaded their title and also the prescriptive title as to the lands described in the plaint, they have moved for the dismissal of the action.

At the trial held in that regard, there had been no admissions by the parties, and the plaintiff of the action has raised 15 issues, while the defendants have raised issue No. 16 to 32.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned District Judge of Kuliyapitiya, pronouncing her judgment on 16-10-2001 (page 177 of the appeal brief) has correctly identified that the plaintiffs have come before the Court to get a declaration of title to the land morefully described in schedules B and C of the plaint, and also for the ejectment of the defendants and other incidental reliefs.

After having determined that the plaintiffs have come before the Court in order to get a declaration of title to the Northern portion of Lot 4 of plan No. 4455 dated 12-07-1942 prepared by G. A. de Silva Licenced Surveyor for the purpose of Partition Action No. 230, and also for the Lot marked as 4B in the same plan, the learned District Judge has proceeded to consider the title pleaded by the plaintiffs.

The earlier mentioned plan has been marked and produced as P-02 at the trial (page 212 of the appeal brief), which is