IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court under and in terms of the Section 5 (c) of the High Court of the Provinces Act No. 19 of

1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of 2006.

SC Appeal No. 67/ 2025 Natchan Chandraras alias Kaththan Natchchan Chandroo SC/HCCA/LA No. 399/2022 No. 187, Mahinda Mawatha, Nuwara Eliya.

CA/HCCA/Kandy No. FA 158/2019 DC/Nuwaraeliya Case No. L/1353/08 Plaintiff Vs.

D. Nihal Rupasinghe, No. 25, Hill Street, Nuwara Eliya.

(Deceased) Defendant Lillie Rupasinghe No. 25, Hill Street, Nuwara Eliya.

Substituted Defendant AND Lillie Rupasinghe No. 25, Hill Street, Nuwara Eliya. Substituted Defendant- Appellant Vs.

Natchan Chandraras alias Kaththan Natchchan Chandroo No. 187, Mahinda Mawatha, Nuwara Eliya.

Plaintiff- Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Lillie Rupasinghe No. 25, Hill Street, Nuwara Eliya.

Substituted Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Vs.

Natchan Chandraras alias Kaththan Natchchan Chandroo No. 187, Mahinda Mawatha, Nuwara Eliya.

Plaintiff- Respondent- Respondent Before: P. Padman Surasena J. (as His Lordship the Chief Justice was then)

Sobhitha Rajakaruna J. Menaka Wijesundera J.

Counsel: Samantha Ratwatte, PC with Ms. Lalanika Kankanamge for the Substituted Defendant- Appellant- Appellant.

K.V.S. Sri Ganesharajan with Ms. Vithusha Loganathan for the Plaintiff-

Respondent- Respondent Argued on: 03.04.2025 Decided on: 04.09.2025 Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’) instituted action, upon an Agreement marked ‘P2’, in the District Court of Nuwaraeliya against one D. Nihal Rupasinghe, who was the original Defendant in the said case. After the demise of the said Nihal Rupasinghe (‘original Defendant’), the Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the ‘Defendant’) was substituted in place of the said original Defendant. The Defendant in her Amended Answer made a Claim in Reconvention. The learned District Judge delivering the Judgement dismissed the action as well as the Claim in Reconvention. Being aggrieved by the said Judgement, the Defendant lodged an appeal in the High Court of Nuwaraeliya, whereas there was no appeal from the Plaintiff. The learned High Court Judge affirmed the Judgement of the District Court, subject to a variation.

Thereafter, the Defendant and the Plaintiff filed separate leave to appeal applications bearing Case Nos. SC/HCCA/LA/399/2022 and SC/HCCA/LA/403/2022 respectively, in this Court. When such matters were taken up for consideration of granting of leave, both the above cases were amalgamated. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel, the Court decided to grant leave to appeal in respect of the questions of law set out in paragraphs 26(1),26(2) and 26(4) in the Petition dated 20.12.2022 filed in the said Case No. SC/HCCA/LA/399/2022.

Consequently, on the same day, in terms of the Proviso to Rule 16(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (1990), this Court proceeded to hear the instant Appeal forthwith, with the consent of the Attorneys-at-Law of all the parties.

Surrounding Circumstances The Plaintiff has averred in the Plaint that the original Defendant became the owner of the subject property morefully described in its 1^st Schedule by way of the Deed of Transfer No.

8505 marked ‘Pa 1’. The said subject property which is in extent of A:00 R:00 P:17.8 includes a two-story building-premises bearing assessment No. 24 and No.25. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that the original Defendant agreed to sell the ground floor of the said subject property for a consideration of Rs. 2,700,000 and accordingly, he entered into the said Agreement, dated 02.11.2006, marked ‘Pa 2’, with the original Defendant and the Substituted Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. As per the terms and conditions of the said Agreement, the Defendant, together with her husband (the original Defendant), accepted a sum of Rs. 500,000