IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC/APPEAL/167/2013 1. Annaratnam Thangarajah nee Sinnatamby SC/HCCA/LA/284/2010 2. Wijeshanthi Thangaraja, NWP/HCCA/APPEAL/19/2009(F) Both of Hettiveediya, Puttalam.

DC Puttalam Case No. 27/RE PLAINTIFFS -VS-

Ratnayake Padmawathi Ramaiah No. 7/17, Paul's Road Puttalam DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Ratnayake Padmawathi Ramaiah No. 7/17, Paul's Road Puttalam DEFENDANT – APPELLANT -VS-

1. Annaratnam Thangarajah nee Sinnatamby

2. Wijeshanthi Thangaraja, Both of Hettiveediya, Puttalam.

PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Annaratnam Thangarajah nee Sinnatamby, 2. Wijeshanthi Thangaraja, Both of Hettiveediya, Puttalam.

Both appearing by Thiyagaraja Kanagasabai of 229/60.

11th Cross Street, Mannar Road, Puttalam Their duly appointed Attorney PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-

APPELLANTS -VS-

Ratnayake Padmawathi Ramaiah No. 7/17, Paul's Road Puttalam DEFENDANT – APPELLANT -

RESPONDENT Before: Hon. Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ.

Hon. E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J.

Hon. A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J.

Counsel: Faisz Musthapha, PC with Hemasiri Vithanachchi instructed by Sanjeewa Kaluarachchi for the Plaintiff – Respondent – Appellants.

Manohara De Silva, PC with Senal Kariyawasam instructed by Atheek Inann for the Defendant - Appellant - Respondent.

Argued on: 09.05.2024 Decided on: 28.11.2024 E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J.

This is an Appeal made by the Plaintiff – Respondent – Appellants (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Appellants) against the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal holden in Kurunegala dated 21.07.2010, allowing the appeal of the Defendant - Appellant – Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Respondent) and setting aside the Judgment of the District Court of Puttalam dated 10.12.2001.

As per the Plaint filed on 07.09.1995, the Appellant states as follows:

1. By Deeds of Gift Nos. 706, 707 and 709 dated 16.06.1974, Alvapillai Sivacolundu Navaratnarajah, Pathmanayaki Kadiragaman (nee Pathmanayaki Sivacolundu) and Alvapillai Sivacolundu Thirugnanasampanthan co- owned the premises at No. 07/71, Paul Road which is morefully described in the schedule to the plaint.

2. By Deed No. 81 dated 24.08.1992, the above-mentioned co-owners transferred the title of the premises to the Appellant.

3. Since January of 1993 or time close to that period, the Respondent has been in unlawful occupation of the said premises.

As a result, the Appellants had prayed for a declaration of title to the said land and premises, ejectment of the Respondent and all those who are holding under her and for damages.

Subsequently, the Respondent filed the Answer dated 27.03.1996 stating:

1. The Plaintiff has not been in the possession of the said land and the Respondent is not aware of the title pleaded by the Plaintiff.

2. The husband of the Respondent, Kanapathy Ratnasamy was the tenant of these premises under one Kadiragaman of No. 67, Davidson Road, Colombo.

3. After the demise of husband of the Respondent, the Respondent became the tenant under said Kadiragaman.

4. There was no request from the Appellants to the Respondent for attornment to accept them as landlords.

5. There is a misjoinder of Plaintiffs and no valid cause of action has been pleaded in the plaint.

In consequence, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the Appellant’s action.

When this case came up for trial on 21.09.1998, the parties admitted the jurisdiction of the Court and raised 15 issues. Out of the said issues, the first 5 issues were raised by the Appellants in accordance with the averments in the plaint, and the Respondent raised the issues No. 6 to 15 in accordance of the averments in the answer. Thereafter, the Appellants moved to raise 3 consequential issues to which the Respondent objected, the 3 consequential issues were:

(i) Issue No.16 Did the Petitioners notify the Respondent regarding the change of ownership from Kadiragaman to the Petitioners?

(ii) Issue No.17 Did the Respondent refuse to accept the notice from the Petitioners informing t