IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA S.C Appeal 223/2017 Suduwadewage Dinapala SC HCCA LA No. 407/2016 No. 304/12, Appeal No. WP/HCCA/MT/24/12 (F) Ihalabiyanwila, D.C. Nugegoda No. M 071/08 Kadawatha.

PLAINTIFF -VS-

Upali Seneviratna No. 276, High Level Road, Maharagama.

DEFENDANT AND Upali Seneviratna No. 276, High Level Road, Maharagama.

DEFENDANT- APPELLANT -VS-

Suduwadewage Dinapala No. 304/12, Ihalabiyanwila, Kadawatha.

PLAINTIFF-

RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Upali Seneviratna No. 276, High Level Road, Maharagama.

DEFENDANT- APPELLANT- APPELLANT -VS-

Suduwadewage Dinapala No. 304/12, Ihalabiyanwila, Kadawatha.

PLAINTIFF-

RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Before: Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J.

Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.

Hon. Achala Wengapulli, J.

Counsel: Ms. Daphne Pieris Vissundera on the instructions of Asela Rajapakse for Defendant-

Appellant-Appellant Lasitha Kanuwanarachchi with Michele Jayasinghe instructed by Mayomi Ranawakka for Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Argued on: 05.03.2021 Decided on:07.03.2025 E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J.

This is an appeal by the Defendant- Appellant-Appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Defendant” or “the Appellant”) against the Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province Holden at Mount Lavinia dated 12.07.2016, where the learned High Court Judges dismissed the appeal of the Defendant and affirmed the Judgment of the District Court of Nugegoda dated 31.10.2011 that was originally decided in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent-

Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Plaintiff” or “the Respondent”).

As per the Plaint filed on 19.11.2007 in the District Court of Mount Lavinia, the Plaintiff-

Respondent described the cause of action as follows:

• The Plaintiff is a property broker, and he met the Defendant and discussed with the Defendant after coming to know that a land belonging to the Defendant facing high level road at Maharagama was to be sold.

• As per the discussion, the Defendant asked him to find a buyer to sell the said property for Rs. 59,000,000/- and the Plaintiff agreed to find a buyer to sell the property at Rs. 59,000,000/-, and the Defendant agreed to pay a commission of 3% from the selling price irrespective of the fact whether it is sold at a price exceeding or below the said agreed price.

• The above verbal agreement was entered between the Plaintiff and Defendant on or about December 2006.

• The Plaintiff introduced ‘The Finance Company Limited’ as the buyer and as per the accepted practice, the aforesaid buyer agreed to pay 1% of the selling price and the Defendant agreed to pay the aforesaid 3% of the selling price as a commission.

• The sale was concluded with the said buyer introduced by the Plaintiff on or about February

2007.

• Although the buyer, ‘The Finance Company Limited’ paid the agreed 1% commission to the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid only Rs. 560,000/- and the Defendant failed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,210,000/- out of the total commission of Rs. 1,770,000/- that he had to pay as per the agreement.

• Even though the Plaintiff requested on many occasions, the Defendant defaulted to pay the said amount and, thereafter, the Plaintiff demanded the said sum through a letter demand made thereto by his lawyer but the Defendant up to the time of filing the Plaint had failed to pay that amount.

As a result, the Plaintiff had prayed the Courtto deliver a judgment to recover from the Defendant the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,210,000/- with legal interest and costs.

After transferring the case to the District Court of Nugegoda from the District Court of Mount Lavinia, the Defendant filed his Answer on 11.06.2008. The Defendant, except for his residence, denied the averments contained in the Plaint, and stated that there was no money due by him to the Plaintiff. The Defendant specially denied the cause of action pleaded by the Plaintiff and the fact that he entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff. The position of the Defend