IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Leave to appeal made in terms of Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 54 of

2006.

1. Kanangara Koralage Dona Anurushhika, 2. Kanangara Koralage Don Lessly Kanangara Both of:

No. 09, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala.

SC Appeal No. 133/12 PLAINTIFFS WP/HCCA/MT/51/2005 (F)

DC Moratuwa Case No. 987/02/M Vs Bank of Ceylon, Head Office, New Building, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01.

DEFENDANT AND Bank of Ceylon, Head Office, New Building, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs

1. Kanangara Koralage Dona Anurushhika, 2. Kanangara Koralage Don Lessly Kanangara Both of:

No. 09, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Kanangara Koralage Dona Anurushhika, No. 09, Siddhamulla, Piliyandala PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-

PETITIONER Kanangara Koralage Don Lessly Kanangara. (Deceased)

Vs Bank of Ceylon, Head Office, New Building, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 01.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENT Before : Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J Counsel : Chathura Galhena with Darani Weerasinghe for the Plaintiff-Respondent-

Appellant Suren Gnanaraj with Wathsala Kekulawala for the Defendant-Appellant-

Respondent Argued on : 5^th September, 2023 Decided on : 29^th February, 2024 Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J This is an appeal to set aside the judgment of the Civil Appellant High Court of the Western Province of Mount Lavinia dated 13^th of June, 2011 which set aside the judgment of the District Court of Moratuwa dated 3^rd of June, 2005, where it was held that the newspaper advertisement published by the defendant-appellant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent-

bank”) was an invitation to treat and not an offer.

Facts of the case The respondent-bank published an advertisement in several newspapers, including the newspaper “Sirikatha” to invest money in minors’ accounts with the respondent-bank.

After seeing the said newspaper advertisement, the 2^nd plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “2^nd appellant”) opened an account with the respondent bank and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,400/- on behalf of his daughter, the 1^st plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “1^st appellant”), who was a minor at that time. The appellant stated that in terms of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement published on the 12^th of July, 1981, the 1^st appellant was entitled receive a sum of Rs. 351, 519/- after 21 years from the date of the said deposit.

Upon the 1^st appellant reaching 21 years of age on the 17^th of July, 2002 she had requested the respondent-bank to remit the said sum of Rs. 351, 519/- to her account maintained at the Piliyandala Branch of the respondent bank. Responding to the said letter, the said bank by its letter dated 18^th of September, 2002 had informed the 1^st appellant that she is only entitled for a sum of Rs. 72, 244.96/-. However, the appellants stated that they were not informed of any conditions regarding the variations of the interest rate and expected to receive the fixed benefits set out in the said advertisement. Hence, the appellants have insisted that they be paid the amount agreed between the parties which is Rs. 351, 519/-.

As the respondent-bank failed to pay a sum of Rs. 351, 519/-, the appellants instituted action in the District Court of Moratuwa seeking to recover the said sum. Thereafter, the respondent bank filed its answer stating that the said advertisement was an invitation to treat and not an offer and sought for a dismissal of the plaint.

After the conclusion of the trial, the learned District Judge, by his judgment dated 3^rd of June, 2005 granted the reliefs prayed for in the prayer to the plaint on the basis that the said newspaper advertisement and the Certificate of Deposit marked ‘P2’ constitutes a contract binding on the parties.

Being aggrieved by the sa