IN THE SUPREME COURT OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA .

SC Appeal No.89/2017 SC HC (CA) LA Application No.264/2016 HC Appeal No. CP/HCCA/FA/12/2014 DC Gampola Case; No. L/3160 BEFORE: CHIEF JUSTICE MURDU N.B. FERNANDO, PC, CJ.

JUSTICE K.KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE,.

JUSTICE MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA,.

COUNSEL: Murshid Maharoof with Githme Senanayake instructed by S.M.M. Makkam for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant.

Shane Foster for the Defendant-Respondent-Respondent instructed by Niranjan de Silva.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: by the Plaintiff–Appellant-Appellant on 04/01/2018 and

22/07/2022.

1^st Defendant-Respondent-Respondent on 07/09/2018 and 16/06/2022.

ARGUED ON: 24/05/2022 DECIDED ON: 24/06/2025 K.KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J The Application for Special Leave to Appeal was preferred by Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the judgement of the High Court of the Central Province dated 29.04.2016 dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant. Aggrieved by which the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Accordingly this Court by Order dated 05/05/2017 granted special leave to Appeal on the following questions of Law:

a)Did the Honourable High Court of the Central Province arrive at an erroneous Conclusion that the said Deed of Transfer 2357(P14) constitutes an outright transfer?

b)Did the Honourable High Court of the Central Province err in Law by arriving at a wrongful conclusion that only secondary evidence could be led in terms of Section 91 and Section 92 of the Evidence Ordinance since the said deed was the Deed of Transfer and fail to identify the proper cause of action which was based on the Constructive Trust?

c)Did the High Court of Central Province err in Law in failing to consider that parol evidence cannot be led to establish constructive trust?

d)Did the High Court of the Central Province arrive at an erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner cannot proceed with the case in view of the third admission between the parties?

g)Did the Courts below err in drawing correct inferences from the attendant circumstances which clearly point that there was no intention to dispose of the beneficial interest by the Petitioner?

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

The property in question, which is the subject of this appeal, originally belonged to the Appellant's husband. Upon his passing, ownership transferred to the Appellant. Since 1980, the Appellant had used the property as collateral to secure loans on multiple occasions.

In 1997, due to her husband’s illness, the Appellant borrowed money from one W.A. Hathurusinghe. At his request, she transferred part of the property to him by Deed No. 8679. The remaining portion was transferred to one Cyril Gamage by Deed No. 2339 to raise additional funds for her husband’s medical expenses.

Subsequently, the Appellant borrowed Rs. 60,000/= from the father of the 1st Defendant- Respondent- Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent). He agreed to lend the money on the condition that a monthly interest of Rs. 3,000/= would be paid. As the process of transferring the property back from Hathurusinghe and Gamage would involve additional costs, the 1st Respondent’s father insisted that the property be transferred directly into the name of his son—the 1st Respondent. Accordingly, on 05/01/1998, the property was transferred to the 1st Respondent via Deed No. 2357.

The Appellant, in her petition, stated that she never intended to transfer the beneficial ownership of the property to the 1st Respondent. However, when she requested a reasonable time to repay the loan, the Respondent claimed full ownership of the property and attempted to evict her.

The Appellant contends that the Respondents are holding the property in constructive trust on her behalf. As a result, she filed an action in the District Court of Gampola on 22/02/2002, seeking the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that she is the rightful owner of the property.

2. An order that the Respondents hold