IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under and in terms of Section 5C(1) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No: 19 of 1990 as amended by the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No: 54 of 2006.

SC Appeal No. 157/2017 SC/HCCA/LA No. 515/2016 Provincial High Court Case No. NCP/HCCA/ANP/1051/2015(F)

DC Polonnaruwa Case No. 11714/L/2007 Marimuttu Shanmugam, No. 3/9, 28^th Mile Post, Mahasenpura, Polonnaruwa.

PLAINTIFF - Vs -

D.M. Gunapala, No. 537, Wadichchale Road, Polonnaruwa.

DEFENDANT And between Marimuttu Shanmugam, No. 3/9, 28^th Mile Post, Mahasenpura, Polonnaruwa.

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT - vs -

D.M. Gunapala, No. 537, Wadichchale Road, Polonnaruwa.

DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT And now between Marimuttu Shanmugam (Deceased), No. 3/9, 28^th Mile Post, Mahasenpura, Polonnaruwa.

PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT Marimuttu Selvanayagam, No. 3/9, 28^th Mile Post, Mahasenpura, Polonnaruwa. SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT – APPELLANT - vs -

D.M. Gunapala, No. 537, Wadichchale Road, Polonnaruwa.

DEFENDANT – RESPONDENT – RESPONDENT Before: Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J Janak De Silva, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Bhagya Herath with Sajeevi Jayasinghe for the Substituted Plaintiff –

Appellant – Appellant Sanjeewa Dassanayake with Dilini Premasiri and Nilum Devapura for the Defendant – Respondent – Respondent Argued on: 2^nd November 2021 Written Tendered by the Substituted Plaintiff – Appellant – Appellant on 31^st July Submissions: 2020 and 19^th November 2021 Tendered by the Defendant – Respondent – Respondent on 26^th October

2021 Decided on: 6^th August 2024 Obeyesekere, J This is the sixth and hopefully the final episode of a litigation that commenced in 2007.

The Plaintiff – Appellant – Appellant [the Plaintiff] filed action in the District Court of Polonnaruwa on 2^nd February 2007 against the Defendant – Respondent – Respondent [the Defendant] seeking a declaration of title in respect of the land referred to in paragraph (a) of the schedule to the plaint, and to evict the Defendant from a part of the said land referred to in paragraph (b) of the schedule to the plaint. It is admitted by the parties that the action of the Plaintiff was a rei vindicatio action. The Defendant having filed answer, the parties entered terms of settlement before the District Court on 30^th October 2008. However, on 16^th June 2011 the Defendant moved the Provincial High Court of the North Central Province holden at Anuradhapura [the High Court] by way of a revision application complaining that there were discrepancies in the survey plan that was prepared pursuant to the said settlement and seeking to set aside the said terms of settlement or in the alternative to direct that a fresh survey be carried out. The High Court did not set aside the terms of settlement but instead directed that a fresh survey be carried out. Pursuant to the Defendant seeking the leave of this Court against the said judgment of the High Court, the parties agreed for the terms of settlement to be set aside and for the matter to be sent back to the District Court for further trial.

The Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended plaint, replied to by an amended answer with a claim for damages for improvements, and a replication. Pursuant to the admissions and issues being raised, the Plaintiff led the evidence of 7 witnesses while the Defendant led the evidence of 3 witnesses. Although the District Court held by its judgment dated 27^th May 2015 that the Plaintiff has established his title to the impugned land and that the Defendant was in possession of such land, the District Court held further that the Defendant can continue to be in possession of the said land until the Defendant obtains a valuation regarding the improvements made by him and the sum so determined by the valuer is paid to the Defendant.

Aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed an appeal before the High Court. The Defendant however chose not to