IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA R. V. Bandaratilake, No. 448, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

SC/APPEAL/20/11 PLAINTIFF SC/HCCA/LA/102/2009 WP/HCCA/COL/49/2008/LA -VS-

D.C. Colombo No. 4147/ZL K. H. Gamage, DEFENDANT (deceased)

1.K. L. P. Gamage, 2.U. K. Gamage, Both of No. 480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANTS AND

2.U. K. Gamage, No. 480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT- PETITIONER -VS-

R. V. Bandaratilake, No. 448, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT

1.K. L. P. Gamage, No. 480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN

2.U. K. Gamage, No. 480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-

PETITIONER -VS-

R. V. Bandaratilake, No. 448, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

PLAINTIFF-

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT

1.K.L.P. Gamage, No.480, Nawala Road, Rajagiriya.

SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT-

RESPONDENT- RESPONDENT Before: Hon. Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J.

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

Hon. Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.

Counsel: Manohara de Silva with V. Guneratne instructed by Manori Pathirana for the Substituted Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Rasika Dissanayake with Shabbeer Huzeir instructed by Sarath Wijewardene for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Argued on: 03.03.2022 Decided on: 08.08.2024 E. A.G. R. Amarasekara, J.

This is an appeal made by the Substituted Defendant Petitioner (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Petitioner) against the order dated 22.04.2009, made by the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals of the Western Province in appeal no. WP/HCCA/COL/49/2008/LA. The said order was made over an appeal made against the order dated 17.03.2008 made by the District Court in case No.4147/ZL. The learned High Court Judges dismissed the said appeal confirming the order made by the learned District Judge. Thus, in his petition dated 14.05.2009, the Petitioner has inter alia prayed to set aside the aforesaid orders made by the Learned High Court Judges as well as by the learned District Court Judge and to direct the learned District Judge to accept and/or approve the draft deed that had been tendered. In the alternative, the Petitioner has prayed that if the Respondent refuses to sign the deed directed(sic) the Registrar of the District Court to sign the same on behalf of the Respondent. However, it appears that no prayer is made to direct the Respondent to sign the deed. As per the contents of the Petition and circumstances of the matter at hand, the term “Respondent” referred to in the above prayer seems to mean the Plaintiff Respondent Respondent (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff Respondent). The learned District Judge in his order dated 17.03.2008, refused to approve a draft deed tendered by the Petitioner along with the other substituted Defendant and get it signed by the Plaintiff Respondent as it was not tendered within the time limit mentioned in the relevant Supreme Court order which will be referred to later in this Judgment. The relevant motion, draft deed and order of the District Court have been tendered as A12, A13 and A14 respectively along with the Petition- vide paragraph 17(iii) (b) of the Petition dated 28^th May 2009. As few decisions made prior to the impugned orders are relevant to understand the matter before this Court, it is necessary to narrate the facts relating to this matter briefly.

Case No. 2280/RE The said case No.2280/RE was filed by one C.O.L.B. Bandaratilake, the father of the Plaintiff Respondent of this case, as the landlord against Mr. K.H. Gamage, who is also the original Defendant of this case, to eject the Original Defendant by plaint dated 23.03.1973. However, the mother of the Plaintiff, Mrs. N.M. Bandaratilake, was the owner of the property involved.

The Father of the Plaintiff having represented to Court that he had due authority to enter into a settlement on behalf of his wife (the owner of the premises), entered into a settlement on

15.08.1975 on the following manner:

(i) Pa