SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 9886

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 127, 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5 (C) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No.

54 of 2006.

S.C. Appeal No: Wijesinghage Nimalawathie, 154/2018 Rambukkanagama, Ingiriya.

PLAINTIFF SC/HCCA/LA No: Vs.

534/2017

1. Wewalpanawa Gamage WP/HCCA/AV No: Sugathansingho, 1699/2017/(F) No.200, Bope, Padukka (Deceased)

District Court of Awissawella 1A. Wewalpanawa Gamage Case No: 22233/P Lalitha Ramani, No. 277, Bope, Padukka.

2. Kuda Balage Lalitha Ranjani, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka.

3. Gamalajjage Jayathilake, No. 278, Ingiriya Road, Bope, Padukka.

4. Kuda Balage Rani Chandralatha, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka.

5. Kuda Balage Leelawathie, No. 276 A, Arukwatte-North, Padukka.

DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN Wijesinghage Nimalawathie, Rambukkanagama, Ingiriya.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs.

1. Wewalpanawa Gamage Sugathansingho, No.200, Bope, Padukka (Deceased)

1A. Wewalpanawa Gamage Lalitha Ramani, No. 277, Bope, Padukka.

2. Kuda Balage Lalitha Ranjani, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka.

3. Gamalajjage Jayathilake, No. 278, Ingiriya Road, Bope, Padukka.

4. Kuda Balage Rani Chandralatha, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka.

5. Kuda Balage Leelawathie, No. 276 A, Arukwatte-North, Padukka.

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Gamalajjage Jayathilake, No. 278, Ingiriya Road, Bope, Padukka.

3rd DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-

APPELLANT Vs.

Wijesinghage Nimalawathie, Rambukkanagama, Ingiriya. (Deceased)

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENT

1A. Wewalpanawa Gamage Jothipala

1B. Wewalpanawa Gamage Buddhika Lankara

1C. Wewalpanawa Gamage Nishadi Dilrukshika

1D. Wewalpanawa Gamage Vidusha Wathsala Lankani All of Rambukkanagama, Ingiriya.

SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF-

APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS

1. Wewalpanawa Gamage Sugathasingho, No.200, Bope, Padukka (Deceased)

1A. Wewalpanawa Gamage Lalitha Ramani, No. 277, Bope, Padukka.

2. Kudabalage Lalitha Ranjani, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka.

4. Kuda Balage Rani Chandralatha, No. 523, Colombo Road, Padukka.

5. Kuda Balage Leelawathie, No. 276, Uthuru Arukwatte, Padukka.

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-

RESPONDENTS Before : P. Padman Surasena, J.

: Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

: Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

Counsel : Rohan Sahabandu, P.C. with Chathurika Elvitigala and Pubudu Weerasuriya instructed by Sachini Senanayake for the 3rd Defendant-Respondent-

Appellant : Pradeep Perera with Sureka Wijendra instructed by Anushka Jayaweera for the Plaintiff-Appellant-

Respondent : Pubudu Alwis with Gavesha Amarasinghe instructed by Nandana Perera for the 1A Defendant-Respondent-Respondent : Nihal Somasiri instructed by Hashini Rathnayaka for the 2nd Defendant-Respondent-Respondent Argued on : 24-02-2025 Written Submissions : 12-09-2024 (By the 2nd Defendant-Respondent-

Respondent)

: 14-02-2020 (By the Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent)

: 14-03-2019 (By the 3rd Defendant-Respondent-

Appellant)

Decided on : 03-06-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant-respondent-appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 3rd defendant-appellant or 3rd defendant) on the basis of being aggrieved by the judgment pronounced on 30-10-2017, by the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Awissawella while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction.

From the impugned judgment, the learned Judges of the High Court set aside the judgment pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge of Awissawella on 27-10-2016, where the partition action instituted by the plaintiff in District Court of Awissawella Case No. P/22233 was dismissed on the basis that the said plaintiff failed to establish the original owner of the land sought to be partitioned to the satisfaction of the Court.

From the impugned judgment, the learned High Court Judges determined that in fact, the plaintiff of the District Court action has sufficiently proved the original owner of the land sought to be partitioned, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top