IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province Holden in Mt. Lavinia (exercising Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) dated 11.07.2011, in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution read with section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act. No. 54 of

2006.

SC Appeal No. 73/2013 1. Nawagamage Ishari Udeshika Perera SC HC.CALA Application No. No. 289 1/1. Dean’s Road, 328/2011 Colombo 10.

WP/HCCA/Mt: /82/2007 D.C. Mt Lavinia Case No. 2. Pemseeli Aloma Perera

1443/01/L

3. Nawagamage Richard Perera Both of No. 289 1/1, Dean’s Road, Colombo 10.

PLAINTIFFS v.

Asithanjan Panduka Sena Amarasinghe.

No.79/1, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda.

DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN

1. Nawagamage Ishani Udeshika Perera, No.289/1/1, Dean’s Road, Colombo 10.

2. Pemseeli Aloma Perera

3. Nawagamage Richard Perera, Both of No. 289 1/1, Dean’s Perera, Colombo 10.

PLAINTIFFS – APPELLANTS v.

Asithanjan Panduka Sena Amarasinghe.

No.79/1, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda.

DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Nawagamage Ishani Udeshika Perera, No.289/1/1, Dean’s Road, Colombo 10.

and presently at 955/5B3, Royal Gardens, Rajagiriya.

2. Pemseeli Aloma Perera (DECEASED) 3. Nawagamage Richard Perera, Both of No. 289 1/1, Dean’s Perera, Colombo 10.

3A. Nawagamuwa Ishari Udeshika Perera, No. 289 1/1, Dean’s Road, Colombo 10.

and presently at 955/5B3, Royal Gardens, Rajagiriya.

PLAINTIFFS– APPELLANTS - APPELLANTS v.

Asithanjan Panduka Sena Amarasinghe.

No.79/1, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda.

DEFENDANT - RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT BEFORE : S. Thurairaja, P.C., J.

Janak De Silva, J. &

M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

COUNSEL : Chandimal Mendis with Sarasi Paranamanna Plaintiffs- Appellants– Appellants.

P.K. Prince Perera with D.M. Walpita for Defendant – Respondent – Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 04.03.2025 DECIDED ON : 31.07.2025 M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J.

This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals of Mt.Lavinia, dated July 11, 2011, by which the learned Judges of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the learned District Judge delivered on August 31, 2007.

Pursuant to the filing of an application seeking leave to appeal before this Court, and upon hearing submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Appellants- Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Respondent-Respondent, this Court granted leave to appeal on May 10, 2013, on the following two questions of law set out in paragraph 11 of the Petition dated August 22, 201, which I reproduce below as they appear;

(d) Whether their Lordships of the High Court erred in holding that in the absence of signatures giving their consent to the divisions made in Plan 4788(P1) and in the absence of a Partition Deed the land remained co-owned; when there was evidence that the Defendant had acted on the said plan and even accepted the said plan.

(e) Whether their Lordships of the High Court failed to consider the issue of estoppel that operates against the Defendant which precludes him from denying that the subject matter is a divided portion.

Consequently, this Court fixed the matter for argument. At the argument, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as “Appellants”) and the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) made their respective submissions.

Factual Background The Appellants instituted the instant action in the District Court of Mt. Lavinia, seeking a decree for demarcation of the common boundary between their land and that of the Respondent.

It was expressly admitted that the land described in the first schedule to the Plaint filed in the District Court, namely Kahatagahawatta was originally owned by Lokuralalage Rancina Hamine and Abeysinghe Arachchige Don Engonis Appuhamy who by deed bearing No.231 dated November 7, 1952 attested by A