IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act, No. 19 of 1990, as amended SC Appeal No. 08/2014 SC/HCCA/LA/144/2013 WP/HCCA/GAM/208/2003(F)

D.C Negombo 2157/SPL Hapuarachchige Don Berty Anslem, No. 394/1, Daluwakotuwa, Kochchikade PLAINTIFF Vs.

Y.B. Alecman, No. 19, Pallansena, Kochchikade DEFENDANT And Between Y.B. Alecman, No. 19, Pallansena, Kochchikade DEFENDANT – APPELLANT Vs.

Hapuarachchige Don Berty Anslem, No. 394/1, Daluwakotuwa, Kochchikade PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT Hapuarachchige Don Douglas Martin Appuhamy, No. 294/2, Silver Sands Road, Daluwakotuwa, Kochchikade.

SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT And now Between Y.B. Alecman, No. 19, Pallansena, Kochchikade DEFENDANT – APPELLANT – APPELLANT

1. Mahabadalage Gnanawathie 2. Y.B. Ajantha Kamal Nasantha.

Both of:

No. 19, Pallansena Road, Kochchikade.

3. Geethani Chitramali, No. 26/7, 3/3, Good Hope Residencies, De Saram Road, Mt. Lavinia.

4. Niranthi Chithramali, No. 27, Gemunu Mawatha, Borupana Road, Ratmalana.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT – APPELLANT –

APPELLANTS Vs Hapuarachchige Don Douglas Martin Appuhamy, No. 294/2, Silver Sands Road, Daluwakotuwa, Kochchikade.

SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – RESPONDENT –

RESPONDENT Before: E.A.G.R. Amarasekera, J Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Kuwera De Zoysa, PC with Ameer Maharoof and Pasindu Bandara for the Substituted Defendant – Appellant – Appellants Dr Sunil Cooray with Sudharshani Cooray for the Substituted Plaintiff –

Respondent – Respondent Argued on: 24^th January 2023 and 24^th February 2023 Written Tendered by the Substituted Defendant – Appellant – Appellants on 23^rd Submissions: October 2014 and 3^rd April 2023 Tendered by the Substituted Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent on 7^th October 2014 and 6^th April 2023 Decided on: 30^th May 2025 Obeyesekere, J This is an appeal filed by the Defendant – Appellant – Appellant [the Defendant] against the judgment delivered by the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province holden in Gampaha [the High Court]. By the said judgment, the High Court affirmed the judgment delivered by the District Court of Negombo [ the District Court] in favour of the Plaintiff – Respondent – Respondent [the Plaintiff]. Leave to appeal was granted on three questions of law to which I shall advert to later in this judgment.

This judgment has been prepared in four parts. I shall in the first part refer to the admitted facts and the facts as pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings in order to give an outline of the case of each party and context to the questions of law. This will be followed by a discussion on the law relating to the second and third questions of law. In the third part, I shall consider in detail the evidence given at the trial, both oral and documentary in order to place in its proper perspective the conclusions of fact reached by both the District Court and the High Court. I shall finally analyse the judgments of the District Court and the High Court in the light of the applicable law, the evidence and the questions of law.

Partnership between the Plaintiff and the Defendant The Plaintiff, the Defendant and five others had entered into Deed of Partnership No. 1124 dated 23^rd July 1976 [the Agreement] with the purpose of the partnership being to commence and carry out a cinema hall under the name of ‘Elite Cinema’ at Welihena, Daluwakotuwa. While the said Agreement did not contain details relating to the ownership of the land on which the cinema was situated, the Agreement provided that: (a) The Plaintiff and his wife shall invest a sum of Rs. 75,000, the Defendant and his wife a sum of Rs. 150,000 and the other five persons in aggregate a further sum of Rs.

75,000;

(b) The Defendant shall be the Managing Partner;

(c) The partners shall be entitled to receive 8% as interest on their investment and thereafter to a division of the pr