1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila vs Anura Silva Abeyratne

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 10000

A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Appeal. Anura Silva Abeyratne XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff SC APPEAL 36/2011 SC (HC) CA LA 169/2010 SP/HCCA/219/2003 (F) DC Hambantota 1124/L V. 1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants AND BETWEEN nura Silva Abeyratne XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant 1

A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Appeal. Anura Silva Abeyratne XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff SC APPEAL 36/2011 SC (HC) CA LA 169/2010 SP/HCCA/219/2003 (F) DC Hambantota 1124/L V. 1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants AND BETWEEN nura Silva Abeyratne XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant 1

V. 1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants-Respondents-Appellants V. Anura Silva Abeyratne, XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2

V. 1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 1. Kusuma Wijetunga Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. 2. Sudirikku Hennedige Nilupul Jayawickrema Thavaluwila, Ambalantota. Defendants-Respondents-Appellants V. Anura Silva Abeyratne, XB- 8/311, Edmonton Housing Complex, Colombo 06. Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 2

Before : E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J Achala Wengappuli, J K. Priyantha Fernando, J Counsel : Vijith Singh instructed by Iranga Perera for the Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. Upul Jayasuriya, PC with Kassala Kamer instructed by Sampath Wijewardena for the Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent. Argued on : 01.10.2024 Decided on : 06.02.2025 K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J 1. The Defendants-Respondents-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal in Matara dated 05.05.2010. Facts in Brief 2. The plaintiff in his plaint has stated that, he is the owner of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint. 3. The plaintiff has stated that, on 17.04.1988 he had obtained a loan of Rs. 40,000 from the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, there had been an agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, by which the plaintiff had transferred the beneficiary interest of the aforementioned lands to the 1st defendant as interest for the said loan. 4. The plaintiff in his plaint has also stated that, in addition to the conditions of the above agreement, the 1st defendant had taken into his possession the deeds of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint and had taken the 3

Before : E. A. G. R. Amarasekara, J Achala Wengappuli, J K. Priyantha Fernando, J Counsel : Vijith Singh instructed by Iranga Perera for the Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. Upul Jayasuriya, PC with Kassala Kamer instructed by Sampath Wijewardena for the Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent. Argued on : 01.10.2024 Decided on : 06.02.2025 K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J 1. The Defendants-Respondents-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Civil Appeal in Matara dated 05.05.2010. Facts in Brief 2. The plaintiff in his plaint has stated that, he is the owner of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint. 3. The plaintiff has stated that, on 17.04.1988 he had obtained a loan of Rs. 40,000 from the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, there had been an agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, by which the plaintiff had transferred the beneficiary interest of the aforementioned lands to the 1st defendant as interest for the said loan. 4. The plaintiff in his plaint has also stated that, in addition to the conditions of the above agreement, the 1st defendant had taken into his possession the deeds of the lands described in the schedule to the plaint and had taken the 3

signatures of the plaintiff on three unfilled copies of a deed of sale as a security for the aforementioned loan. 5. According to the plaint, the plaintiff upon carrying out a search had discovered that, the deed bearing No. 167 [P-1] attested by H.A Amarasena Notary Public had been fraudulently executed after filling out the blanks of the aforementioned unfilled deed of sale by the use of a typewriter. The plaintiff in his plaint further states that, a false date which was 13.06.1988 and a false figure had been included in getting the false deed attested by H.A. Amarasena Notary Public. 6. The plaintiff has also asserted that, the 2nd defendant who is the son of the 1st defendant and who is also a minor has been fraudulently included as the purchaser in the deed of sale P-1. 7. The plaintiff in his plaint also states that, the subject matter of P-1 was never subject to a sale. There existed no such agreement between the parties and that the details in P-1 had been subsequently included in a fraudulent manner. The plaintiff states that, the 1st and the 2nd defendants have acted together and created a false deed. 8. The plaintiff in his plaint states that, three causes of action have arisen. First, P-1 is a fraudulent deed and has no legal effect. Second, as at the date on which P-1 had been executed, the 2nd defendant was a minor. Finally, as at the date o

signatures of the plaintiff on three unfilled copies of a deed of sale as a security for the aforementioned loan. 5. According to the plaint, the plaintiff upon carrying out a search had discovered that, the deed bearing No. 167 [P-1] attested by H.A Amarasena Notary Public had been fraudulently executed after filling out the blanks of the aforementioned unfilled deed of sale by the use of a typewriter. The plaintiff in his plaint further states that, a false date which was 13.06.1988 and a false figure had been included in getting the false deed attested by H.A. Amarasena Notary Public. 6. The plaintiff has also asserted that, the 2nd defendant who is the son of the 1st defendant and who is also a minor has been fraudulently included as the purchaser in the deed of sale P-1. 7. The plaintiff in his plaint also states that, the subject matter of P-1 was never subject to a sale. There existed no such agreement between the parties and that the details in P-1 had been subsequently included in a fraudulent manner. The plaintiff states that, the 1st and the 2nd defendants have acted together and created a false deed. 8. The plaintiff in his plaint states that, three causes of action have arisen. First, P-1 is a fraudulent deed and has no legal effect. Second, as at the date on which P-1 had been executed, the 2nd defendant was a minor. Finally, as at the date o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document