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

In the matter of an appeal from the Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Colombo in the Western Province dated 20.11.2013. S.C. Appeal No. 217/2014 HCCA Colombo Appeal Nos.

WP/HCCA COL. 96/2005(F)A WP/HCCA COL. 96/2005(F)B DC Colombo Case No.18861/L Sathyajith Deshabandu Welaratne Presently at No.15, Gainsburry Lane, Acton, London United Kingdom By his Attorney U.D. Welaratne No. 57/14.

Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethul Kotte.

Plaintiff Vs.

1. G.N. Perera

2. H. Damayanthi Samarasekara Both of No.50/1, New Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethulkotte.

Defendants AND BETWEEN in WP/HCCA COL. 96/2005(F)A 1. G.N. Perera (deceased)

2. H. Damayanthi Samarasekara Both of No.50/1, New Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethulkotte.

Defendant-Appellants Vs.

Sathyajith Deshabandu Welaratne Presently at No.15, Gainsburry Lane, Acton, London United Kingdom By his Attorney U.D. Welaratne No. 57/14.

Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethul Kotte.

Plaintiff-Respondent AND BETWEEN in WP/HCCA COL. 96/2005(F)B Sathyajith Deshabandu Welaratne Presently at No.15, Gainsburry Lane, Acton, London United Kingdom By his Attorney U.D. Welaratne No. 57/14.

Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethul Kotte.

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs.

1. G.N. Perera (deceased)

2. H. Damayanthi Samarasekara Both of No.50/1, New Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethulkotte.

Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN

2. H. Damayanthi Samarasekara No.50/1, New Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethulkotte.

2^nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant and 2nd Defendant-Respondent-

Appellant Vs.

Sathyajith Deshabandu Welaratne Presently at No.15, Gainsburry Lane, Acton, London United Kingdom By his Attorney U.D. Welaratne No. 57/14.

Jayaweera Mawatha, Ethul Kotte.

Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent and Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent BEFORE : MURDU N.B. FERNANDO, PC, CJ.

E.A.G.R. AMARASEKARA, J.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

COUNSEL : Jagath Wickramanayake, PC, with Ms. Pujanee De Alwis instructed by Ms. Nimesha Nicholas for the 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant and

2nd Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

Manohara de Silva, PC, with Ms. Sasiri Chandrasiri for the Plaintiff-Respondent- Respondent and Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 31st January, 2023 DECIDED ON : 11th June, 2025 ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) through his power of Attorney holder instituted an action against the 1st and 2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the 1st and 2nd Defendants”) and sought inter alia a declaration of Court of his entitlement to the land described in the 1st schedule to the Plaint, a declaration in respect of the disputed land strip as a reserve for a common access roadway described in the 2nd schedule, and he is entitled to use the said roadway. The Plaintiff also prayed for an order of Court directing the Defendants not to cause any obstruction to the said roadway and remove any obstacles that had been placed on it, which prevented him from gaining access to his land over the said section of the roadway.

In seeking the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action as the primary relief, the Defendants, in their joint answer, have claimed that the said roadway is used by them as a ‘private roadway’ to access their property and also disclosed the fact that the Plaintiff has a separate access to his land, along his Eastern boundary. They also claimed that the Plaintiff never used this roadway to access his land. After the Defendants have tendered their joint answer, a commission was issued by the District Court on licensed surveyor C.C. Wickramasinghe, who returned that commission with the Plan No. C/343.

Parties proceeded to trial after settling for a total of 12 issues between them. The Power of Attorney Holder, and three surveyors gave evidence for the Plaintiff and tendered the Power of Attorney No. 801 (P1), Deed Nos. 943 (P2), 555( P9) and 1391 (P10) along with Plan Nos. 518 (P3), 2451 (P4), 880 (P5) and C/343 (P7), its report (P8) in addition to a statement made by the mother o