IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Articles 127 and 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No.

54 of 2006.

The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai faith in Lanka (Ceylon), No.65, National Bahai Center, Havelock Road, Colombo 06.

SC Appeal. 25/2018 Plaintiff S.C/H.C./C.A (LA) 169/2017 Vs SP/HCCA/MT/79/2013 (F) 1. Shirani Pushpalatha De Silva, D.C. Mt Lavinia 2017/05/L 2. Nanayakkara Casen Pallige Alfred De Silva, both of No. 29/10, Pangiriwatte Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda.

Defendants And The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai faith in Lanka (Ceylon), No.65, National Bahai Center, Havelock Road, Colombo 06.

Plaintiff- Appellant Vs.

1. Shirani Pushpalatha De Silva

2. Nanayakkara Casen Pallige Alfred De Silva, both of No. 29/10, Pangiriwatte Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda.

Defendant-Respondents And Now Between The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai faith in Lanka (Ceylon), No.65, National Bahai Center, Havelock Road, Colombo 06.

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner/Appellant Vs.

1. Shirani Pushpalatha De Silva

2. Nanayakkara Casen Pallige Alfred De Silva, both of No. 29/10, Pangiriwatte Road, Mirihana, Nugegoda.

Defendant- Respondent-Respondents Before: Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ.

Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, J and S. Thurairaja, PC, J.

Counsel: Manohara de Silva, PC with Hirosha Munasinghe for the Plaintiff- Appellant-

Appellant instructed by N. Hippola Geoffrey Alagaratnam, PC with Supuni Gunasekara for the Defendant–

Respondent- Respondents Argued on: 06-09-2023 Decided on: 16-10-2024 Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC. J., This is an Appeal against the judgement of the Civil Appellate High Court of the Western Province holden in Mount Lavinia (“the High Court”).

This Appeal stems from an action instituted by the Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant (“the plaintiff”) in the District Court of Mount Lavinia, inter-alia seeking a declaration of title to the land more fully referred to in the schedule to the plaint, ejectment of the defendants therein and damages until the plaintiff is restored in possession.

The Defendant- Respondent-Respondents (“the defendants”) rejected the contention of the plaintiff and pleaded that they had prescriptive title to the land in suit.

The District Court accepted the prescriptive title of the defendants and did not grant relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff went before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgement, the plaintiff has now come before this Court, having obtained leave on the following two questions of law;

(i) Did both the District Court and the High Court err in law by holding that the 1^st defendant has acquired prescriptive title to the land in suit when the defendants have failed to lead sufficient evidence to prove prescriptive title to the land in suit?

(ii) Did the learned High Court Judges err in holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish title to the land in suit?

The factual background

01.The plaintiff is a religious institution, registered in the year 1972 in accordance with the law.

The plaintiff contends it acquired title to the land in suit in the year 1972 by virtue of a deed bearing No 3284 (P1). The case of the plaintiff was that even prior to the execution of the deed, the land in suit was owned by the plaintiff. However, it was in the name of one Kandaiah, a trustee of the plaintiff institution. It was transferred to the plaintiff by the aforesaid P1 deed in 1972, upon a resolution passed by the plaintiff institution.

Therefore, the plaintiff contends, that from or about 1956, the plaintiff has had undisturbed and uninterrupted possession of the land in suit and had thus, prescribed to the land.

02.The defendants case was that the defendants, (husband and wife) have been carrying on a horticulture business on the land in suit for the last 25 to 30 years.

03.The defendants contend tha