IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal from the Judgement of the High Court of the Western Province, exercising Civil Appellate jurisdiction Holden at Gampaha.

Solanga Arachchige Kulawardena, No. 320/2, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

Plaintiff Vs.

SC/Appeal /40/2018 1. Solanga Arachchige Nomananda, SC/HCCA/LA 611/2016 No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, WP/HCCA/GPH/254/2010(F) Ganemulla.

D.C. Gampaha Case No. 301/P

2. Ranasinghe Arachchige Magilin Nona alias Magilin Ranasinghe, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla. Defendants And Between Solanga Arachchige Kulawardena, No. 320/2, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

Plaintiff- Appellant Vs.

1. Solanga Arachchige Nomananda, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

2. Ranasinghe Arachchige Magilin Nona alias Magilin Ranasinghe, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

Defendant-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Solanga Arachchige Nomananda, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

2. Ranasinghe Arachchige Magilin Nona alias Magilin Ranasinghe, No. 320, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

Defendant-Respondent-

Petitioner/Appellants Vs.

Solanga Arachchige Kulawardena No. 320/2, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

(since deceased)

Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent

1A. Solanga Arachchige Nandasena 1B. Solanga Arachchige Siriyalatha

1C. Solanga Arachchige Hema Kanthi all of 320/2, Kendaliyaddapaluwa, Ganemulla.

Substituted Plaintiff – Appellant-

Respondents Before: Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC.J., Kumudini Wickramasinghe J. and Janak de Silva J.

Counsel: H. Withanachchi with Shantha Karunadhara for Defendant-Respondent-

Appellant Sudarshani Cooray for the Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent Argued on: 06-10-2022 Decided on: 01-04-2025 Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. CJ., This is an Appeal against the judgement of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province, Holden in Gampaha (“the High Court”).

The Plaintiff- Appellant- Respondent (“the Plaintiff/ the Respondent”) instituted a partition action against the Defendant- Respondent- Appellants (“the Defendant/ the Appellants”) in the District Court of Gampaha, seeking inter-alia partitioning of a land named ‘Polgahawatta’ in Kendaliyaddapaluwa village, Mahara, in extent 1A 2R 15P between the Plaintiff and the 1^st Defendant in equal shares. The Plaintiff and the 1^st Defendant are siblings.

The District Court dismissed the partition action, upon the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to identify the land to be partitioned.

The Plaintiff went up in Appeal to the High Court and the learned judges of the High Court upheld the appeal and permitted the partitioning of the land in extent 1A 2R 15P in equal shares.

Being aggrieved by the said judgement the Defendants are now before this Court, having obtained Leave to Appeal on three questions of law which are as follows;

i. Did the Civil Appellate High Court err in law by reversing the findings reached by the learned District Judge in the circumstances of this case?

ii. Did the learned Civil Appellate High Court Judges err in law by not taking cognizance that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the land depicted in Preliminary Plan marked “X” formed the subject matter of this partition action?

iii. Have the learned High Court Judges misdirected themselves by not appreciating the contents in the surveyor’s report marked “X1” when the learned High Court Judges arrived at a finding that lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Preliminary Plan “X” formed the subject matter of this action? The Plaintiff’s Case The Plaintiff’s case is that the land to be partitioned in extent 1A 2R 15P devolved on the Plaintiff and the 1^st Defendant in equal shares by a Deed bearing No. 23113 dated 27-04-

1954. (P1)

The plaint dated 04-04-2003 refers to the pedigree and states that the land to be partitioned, was originally owned by two persons and the share of one such person, by a Deed bearing No. 3265 dated 05-03-1920 was transferred to the Plaintiff’s father. The plaint further avers that the other person too, transfer