Samayawardhena, J.

Introduction The plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Galle on 27.06.1974 seeking a declaration of title to, ejectment of the three defendants from, the land described in the schedule to the plaint, and damages. As evidenced from issue Nos. 24 and 35 raised at the trial, the 1st defendant claimed prescriptive title to the land, while the 2nd and 3rd defendants asserted that they came to the land with the leave and licence of the 1st defendant’s father. After trial, the District Court dismissed the 1st defendant’s prescriptive claim and entered judgment for the plaintiff. This was affirmed by the High Court of Civil Appeal of Galle by judgment dated 19.05.2015. Hence this appeal by the 1st defendant to this Court.

This Court has granted leave to appeal on two questions of law:

(a) Did the High Court of Civil Appeal err in law in failing to consider that the plaintiff’s action is prescribed in law?

(b) Did the High Court of Civil Appeal misunderstand the interim settlement reached in case No. LN 6699?

Was the plaintiff’s action prescribed in law?

The first question of law, in my view, is misconceived in law, as there is no time period within which an owner of land should come before the District Court seeking a declaration of title and ejectment of trespassers from the land. In other words, extinctive prescription has no application to rei vindicatio actions. Once the action is filed, it falls upon the defendant to establish acquisitive prescription, should he wish to rely on such a claim. There is no burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did not prescribe to the land. Prescriptive possession serves only as a shield of defence, not as a sword of attack (Terunnanse v. Menike (1895) 1 NLR 200 at 202). However, these observations will not result in the dismissal of the appeal. The second question of law addresses the core issue in the case. The second question of law on which leave to appeal was granted by this Court is whether the District Court and the High Court of Civil Appeal erred in law in rejecting the prescriptive claim of the 1st defendant by misconstruing the interim settlement reached in case No. LN 6699.

Was the adverse possession proved?

In order to succeed in a claim of prescriptive title, section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, which delineates the mode of acquiring such title, requires proof of undisturbed and uninterrupted possession, under a title adverse to or independent of that of the owner of the immovable property, for a period of ten years.

Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action, or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor, from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs. And in like manner, when any plaintiff shall bring his action, or any third party shall intervene in any action for the purpose of being quieted in his possession of lands or other immovable property, or to prevent encroachment or usurpation thereof, or to establish his claim in any other manner to such land or other property, proof of such undisturbed and uninterrupted possession as herein before explained, by such plaintiff or intervenient, or by those under whom he claims, shall entitle such plaintiff or intervenient to a decree in his favour with costs:

Provided that the said period of ten years shall only begin to run against parties claiming estates in remainder or reversion from the time when the parties so claiming acquired a right of possession to the property in dispute.

There is no dispute that in paragr