IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Section 5(c)(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.54 of 2006 read together with Article 128 of the Constitution.

Athamlebbe Seiynutheen, No.149, New Mosque Road, Aakkaraipattu-6 Plaintiff Vs.

S.C. Appeal No.157/2014 SCHCCA LA No. 359/2011 Civil Appeelate High Court NO.EP/HCCA/KAL No. 111/08 DC Akkaraipattu Case No.DCA/27/L/03 Sinnalebbei Maraikar Mohamed Kaasim, Muthaliar Road, Akkaraipattu-3 Defendant AND BETWEEN Athamlebbe Seiynutheen, No.149, New Mosque Road, Aakkaraipattu-6 Plaintif-Appellant Vs.

Sinnalebbei Maraikar Mohamed Kaasim, Muthaliar Road, Akkaraipattu-3 Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Sinnalebbei Maraikar Mohamed Kaasim, (Dead)

Muthaliar Road, Aakkaraipattu-3 Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Mohammathismail Maraikkar Avvakuddy, No.235, Mudaliyar Road, Aakkaraipattu-03 Substituted-Defendant-Respondent-

Appellant Vs.

Athamlebbe Seiynutheen, No.149, New Mosque Road, Aakkaraipattu-6 Plaintif-Appellant-Respondent BEFORE : MURDU N.B. FERNANDO PC, CJ.

JANAK DE SILVA, J.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

COUNSEL : Nizam Kariapper, PC with M.I.M. Iynullah, Ilham Kariapper & Ms. Chathurika for the Substituted-

Defendant-Respondent-Appellant V. Puvitharan, PC with Ms. A. Rajasekaran for the Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent ARGUED ON : 28th February,2024 DECIDED ON : 25^th July, 2025 ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

This appeal arises from an action instituted by the Plaintiff, seeking a declaration of his title to the land under dispute and ejectment of the Defendant therefrom. The Defendant claimed in his Answer that the disputed land is owned and cultivated by him, on a permit bearing No. AP/20/ES/917/76.

After trial, the District Court of Akkaraipattu, dismissed the Plaintiff’s action by its judgment dated 21.01.2008. The High Court of Civil Appeal allowed the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against that judgment and granted relief as prayed for in the Plaint. The Defendant thereafter sought leave to appeal from this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal.

This Court, after hearing Counsel, granted Leave to Appeal on the following questions of law, on 09.09.2014;

1. Was the High Court of Civil Appeal, Kalmunai, in error in proceeding on the basis that the Plaintiff had title to the land ignoring the conclusions reached by the learned District Judge set out in para 21(i) to (iv) of this Petition? Yes, As a permit holder cannot get a declaration of title to the State land.

2. Did the High Court of Civil Appeal, Kalmunai, err in law in granting the relief prayed for by the Plaintiff notwithstanding the fanciful nature of his claim to title borne out by the observations made by the learned District Judge set out in para 21 (viii) to (xiv) of this Petition? Same answer as (1). However, the Plaintiff is entitled to get an order of eviction against the Defendant.

3. Was the High Court of Civil Appeal, Kalmunai, in error in ordering the ejectment of the Defendant who had been in possession of the land for more than 47 years without giving any weight to the conclusions made by the learned District Judge set out in para 21 (xv) to (xviii) of this Petition? No.

In instituting action before the District Court, the Plaintiff claimed that he has the title to the parcel of land described in the schedule to the Plaint, upon a permit issued under Land Development Ordinance bearing No. AP/20/ES/45, and the Defendant had forcibly occupied the said land in May 2000.

The Defendant, averred in his Answer that he is in possession of a land, the boundaries of which he described in its schedule upon receiving “approval” to enjoy the crown land, under permit No. AP/20/ES/917/76. He alleged that the permit No. AP/20/ES/45, relied on by the Plaintiff to prove his title is a one “fraudulently prepared”.

The parties have settled for a total of 12 issues among them. The Plaintiff raised his issues in line with the posit