IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Auriya Vinothini Yogaraja nee Poopalarathnam, No. 543/2/B, Galle Road, Wellawatta.

and now

3037, Shorepine CT, Riverside, CA 92504, USA.

(through her Power of Attorney Weerakkody Arachchilage Sampath Seenadeera of No. 41, Darmarama Road, Rathmalana)

Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant SC/APPEAL/33/2020 Vs.

WP/HCCA/MT/19/18/LA DC/MOUNT LAVINIA/2993/16/L Riyal Mohomed Riswan, No. 28, 13th Lane, Kollupitiya, Colombo 03.

and No. 151/3, Galle Road, Dehiwala.

6th Defendant-Appellant-

Respondent And

1. Parwathi Pragash alias Madoona Damayanthi, No. 151/3, Galle Road, Dehiwala.

2. Wijesooriya Arachchige Don Gunapala, No. 6/61, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

3. Mohamed Subathir Mohomed Abhu Yaseed, No. 45, Hamden Lane, Walawatte.

4. Nimaleshwaree Edward Yaseed, No. 45, Hamden Lane, Wellawatte.

5. Niroshan Company (Pvt.) Ltd, No. 65, Stock Place, Colombo 10.

Defendants-Respondents-

Respondents Before: Hon. Justice P. Padman Surasena Hon. Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena Hon. Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere Counsel: Charith Galhena with Piyahasi Dias for the Plaintiff-

Respondent-Appellant.

Niranjan Arulpragasam with Lasika Udayangani for the 6th Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

Argued: 04.10.2024 Written Submissions:

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant and the 6th Defendant-

Appellant-Respondent on 04.11.2024 Decided: 02.12.2024 Samayawardhena, J.

The plaintiff filed action in the District Court of Mount Lavinia through a power of attorney holder against six defendants seeking several reliefs including a declaration of title to the land in suit and the ejectment of the defendants. The 6th defendant took up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the action on the basis that the said power of attorney is invalid as it had been attested by a notary in Colombo despite the notary holding the licence to practice within the judicial zone of Gampaha. By order dated 26.03.2018, the District Court overruled this objection, but on appeal, by judgment dated 04.12.2018, the High Court of Civil Appeal of Mount Lavinia upheld the objection and dismissed the plaintiff’s action. This Court granted leave to appeal on the question of law as to whether the High Court erred in law by holding that a defective power of attorney vitiates the plaintiff’s action in toto.

Section 31(22) of the Notaries Ordinance, No. 1 of 1907, as amended, states:

31(22). [The notary] shall not authenticate or attest any deed or instrument in any area other than that in which he is authorized to practice, nor in any language other than that in which he is authorized to practice nor authenticate or attest any deed or instrument drawn in any language other than that in which he is authorized to practice.

If a notary violates the above provision/rule or any other provision/rule set out in section 31, he commits a punishable offence under section 34 but the instrument attested does not become invalid, as expressly stated in section 33 of the Ordinance.

33. No instrument shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the failure of any notary to observe any provision of any rule set out in section 31 in respect of any matter of form:

Provided that nothing hereinbefore contained shall be deemed to give validity to any instrument which may be invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of any other written law.

When the wording of a statute is clear, there is no need for interpretation; the words speak for themselves. The Judge cannot introduce new words or disregard existing words to give a different interpretation in a manner the Judge thinks serve the ends of justice. The words, phrases, and sentences must be construed according to their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meanings. This principle, known as the primary or literal rule, constitutes the foundational tenet of statutory interpretation. (Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statues, 12th Edition (1969), pages 28- 32; N.S. Bindra Interpretation of Statutes, 13^th edition (2023), page