| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal to the Supreme Court against the Judgment of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal holden in Kandy in case No CP/HCCA/KAN/12/2011. SC APPEAL 119/2014 SC/HCCA/LA 518/2013 СР/HCCA/Kandy 12/2011[F] DC Matale 2136/P Ampitiye Wimalagnana Thero, Viharadhipathi, Koombiyangoda Vihara, Matale. (Deceased) Plaintiff Ampitiye Siriwimala Thero Viharadhipathi, Koombiyangoda Vihara, Matale. Substituted-Plaintiff Vs 1. Kader Mohideen (Son of Meera Saibo) No. 20/1. Koombiyangoda, Matale. (Deceased). 1A. Karder Mohideen Abdul Jabar, No.20/1, 1 |
| Koombiyangoda, Matale. 2. K.M Farook, No.16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 3. Mohamad Mujahideen, (Appearing by his guardian Idroos Lebbe Zaheera Bebe) No.16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. Defendants AND BETWEEN Ampitiye Siriwimala Thero Viharadhipathi, Koombiyangoda Vihara, Matale. Substituted Plaintiff- Appellant Vs 1A. Karder Mohideen Abdul Jabar, No. 20/1, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 2. K.M Farook, No.16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 2 |
| 3. Mohamad Mujahideen (Appearing by his guardian Idroos Lebbe Zaheera Bebe) No.16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. Defendants-Respondents AND NOW BETWEEN 2. K.M. Farook No.16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 2nd-Defendant-Respondent- Appellant Vs. Thalathuoye Samiddhi Siri Thero, Viharadhipathi, Koombiyangoda Vihara, Matale. Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent 1A. Karder Mohideen Abdul Jabar, No. 20/1, Koombiyangoda, Matale. 3. Mohamed Mujahideen, (Appearing by his guardian Idroos Lebbe Zaheera Bebe) 3 |
| B A D 1 1 No. 16, Koombiyangoda, Matale. A and 3rd Defendants-Respondents- Respondents efore : A. H. M. D. Nawaz, J. Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. K. Priyantha Fernando, J. Counsel : S.K Sangakkara with W.D Weeraratna and Ms. Hemamala Kumari for the 2nd Defendant-Respondent- Appellant. Harsha Soza, PC, with Upendra Walgampaya instructed by Srihan Samaranayake for the Substituted Plaintiff- Appellant-Respondent. rgued on : 25.07.2024 ecided on : 05.08.2024 K. PRIYANTHA FERNANDO, J . The Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted an action for the partition of the lands described in the schedules to the plaint named in the District Court of Matale. 4 |
| 2. After trial, the learned District Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s action on the basis that the plaintiff is not entitled to any undivided share in terms of the law. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned District Judge, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Civil Appellate High Court of the Central Province holden in Kandy, bearing No. CP/HCCA/Kandy No.12/2011[F]. 4. Upon hearing of the said appeal, the learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court allowing the appeal, set aside the judgement of the District Court and directed the Court record to be sent back to the District Court to decide on the question of title. 5. The learned Judges of the Civil Appellate High Court held that, the Koombiyangoda Viharaya having the status of a corporate body could acquire and hold immovable property. 6. The instant appeal was preferred to this Court by the Defendant- Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) against the said judgement of the Civil Appellate High Court and leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the following questions of law: 1. Will it be rati |
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
