IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provision) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 2006 read with Article 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka.

Sulpatul Kairia Abdul Carder SC/ Appeal/ 171/ 2016 No. 70/2, SC/ HCCA/ LA/ 72/ 2016 Green Lane, WP/ HCCA/ COL/ LA/ 131/ 2013 Colombo 13.

DC (Colombo) 20353/P PLAINTIFF Vs.

1. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Iqbal 2. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Rauf Both of No. 76/1/1, Abdul Hameed Street, Colombo 12.

DEFENDANTS AND THEN BETWEEN

1. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Iqbal 2. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Rauf Both of No. 76/1/1, Abdul Hameed Street, Colombo 12.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS Vs.

Sulpatul Kairia Abdul Carder No. 70/2, Green Lane, Colombo 13.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN

1. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Iqbal 2. Mohamed Haniffa Mohamed Rauf Both of No. 76/1/1, Abdul Hameed Street, Colombo 12.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS Vs.

Sulpatul Kairia Abdul Carder No. 70/2, Green Lane, Colombo 13.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT BEFORE : P. PADMAN SURASENA, J.

A. H. M. D. NAWAZ, J.

ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J.

COUNSEL : Kuvera de Zoysa, PC. with Kamran Aziz and Samadhi Mahagodage for the 1^st & 2^nd Defendant-Appellant-

Appellants.

Gihan Liyanage instructed by Shanika Karunaratne for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent.

ARGUED &

DECIDED ON : 13-05-2024 P. PADMAN SURASENA, J.

Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel for the 1 ^st and 2^nd Defendant- Appellant-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants) and also the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) and concluded the argument of this case.

This is a partition action in which the learned Additional District Judge had entered the interlocutory decree in accordance with the findings in the judgment dated 15-06-2009. Although there had been several further litigations thereafter also in appellate Courts, no party has been successful in contesting the share allotments made by the District Court in the said judgment dated 15-06-2009. Accordingly, the interlocutory decree entered on 04-11-2009 has continued to remain in force to date.

After the Surveyor made his return to the commission issued by Court proposing a Scheme of Partition, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants had filed their statement of objections to the said proposed Scheme of Partition. The said objection was raised on the basis that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants should get an enhanced compensation as per the valuation report they had submitted marked වි 2. The 1st and 2nd Defendants in the said objections had claimed that they had made improvements to the upstairs portion of the building situated in Lot A3¹ which has been allotted by the proposed Scheme of Partition, to the Plaintiff. Thus, in view of the said allotment to the Plaintiff, it was the position of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants that they should have been granted a compensation of Rs. 641,631.00 instead of Rs. 3000.00. We note that the sum of Rs. 3000.00 as compensation has been calculated on the basis that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are entitled only for 790 square feet out of a total of 1600 square feet. The learned Additional District Judge after the inquiry conducted in that regard, by his order dated

1 Lot A3 of Plan No. 1047 dated 04-11-20210 prepared by K. G. Krishnapillai Licensed Surveyor.

27-09-2013, had rejected the claim for enhanced compensation put forward by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants for the afore-said improvements they have claimed.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 27-09-2013 pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants had filed a Leave to Appeal Petition in the Civil Appellate High Court. The Civil Appellate High Court had granted Leave to Appeal to that Petition. After the argument, the Civil Appellate High Court by its judgment dated 12-01-2016 had proceeded to dismiss that appeal. The