IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC APPEAL 133 /2013 Weerasinghe Arachchige Ramenike alias SC/HCCA/LA/No.244/2012 Weerakkody Arachchige Rammenike, SP/HCCA/RAT/No.380/2007(F) Bulutota, D.C. Embilipitiya Case No.6167/Land Sooriyakanda.

PLAINTIFF Vs.

Peter Fernandolage John, Kada Muduna, Sooriyakanda.

DEFENDANT AND Peter Fernandolage John, Kada Muduna, Sooriyakanda.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs.

Weerasinghe Arachchige Ramenike alias Weerakkody Arachchige Rammenike, Bulutota, Sooriyakanda.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Weerasinghe Arachchige Ramenike alias Weerakkody Arachchige Ramenike, Bulutota, Sooriyakanda.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs.

Peter Fernandolage John, Kada Muduna, Sooriyakanda.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENT Before : Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ.

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

Arjuna Obeyesekere, J.

Counsel : Harsha Soza, PC with Anuruddha Dharmaratne for the Plaintiff – Respondent-

Appellant.

Z.A. Ammen Hussain instructed by Hussain Ahamed for the Defendant-

Appellant-Respondent Argued On : 28.10.2021 Decided On : 30.10.2024 E A G R Amarasekara, J The Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Plaintiff) instituted the action No.6167/Land on 26.03.1998 at the Embilipitiya District Court against the Defendant Appellant Respondent (Hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Defendant) stating inter-alia that;

(a) The original owner of the land described in the schedule to the Plaint was the State, (b) The State by a permit marked as P1 with the plaint which was issued in terms of section 19(1) of the Land Development Ordinance, conveyed the land described in the schedule "A" to the plaint to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also acquired prescriptive title due to the long period of possession from 1987, (c) The Defendant in the year 1993 illegally entered into a portion of the said land and has commenced illegal possession of the portion of land described in the schedule "B" to the Plaint, d) The Plaintiff, accordingly, got the said land surveyed before the Grama Niladari and prepared a plan marked P2 with the plaint.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff in the said plaint prayed for a declaration of title to the land described in schedule "A" to the plaint, ejectment of the Defendant and all others under him from the land described in Schedule "B" to the plaint, for damages in a sum of Rs.500/- per month from the Defendant until the Plaintiff's possession is restored and, costs.

However, this Court observes that the document P1 dated 24.07.1986, found in the brief is not a permit as described in the plaint but a grant issued in terms of section 19(4) of the Land Development Ordinance. The document found in the brief marked P2 cannot be identified as a plan made before the Grama Niladari after the alleged encroachment that took place after the said land was conveyed to her by P1, but a line drawing of a village plan made in 08.10.1985.

The aforesaid plan is also referred to in the said document marked P1in describing the land.

The Defendant filed his Answer dated 11.05.2000 and took up the position that the Defendant was in possession of the land described in the Answer from 1969 and he received written permission from the State in 1972 for his possession. The Defendant has further stated that after obtaining government aid, he put up a house in the said land. The Defendant has also stated that in terms of the entries in the land ledger in the Kollonne, Divisional Secretariat, he has been issued with the permit No.75/1441(sometimes referred to as permit No.1441 in evidence and in this judgment) for the said land and thus, he is entitled to the said land. The Defendant alleged in his answer that the Plaintiff has sold her land in Sooriyakanda to her brother and is disputing the Defendant's land. While estimating his house and plantation to a value of Rs.650,000/-, the Defendant had prayed, inter alia, for a dismissal of the Plaintiff's action and for a declaration in favour of the Defenda