IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal from the Judgment dated

17-06-2016 of the Court of Appeal in C.A.

509/97(F) in terms of Article 128 of the SC Appeal 46/2017 Constitution.

SC. Spl.L. A 144/2018 CA Appeal 509/97 (F)

D.C. Panadura Case No.16733/L Gothamadattawa Weerasinghe, of No.29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda [Deceased]

Original 1st Plaintiff Vijitha Weerasinghe, of No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda Substituted 1st Plaintiff and the 2nd Plaintiff Vs.

1. Epitawalage Eron Singho No. 32/2, Walana Road, Panadura

2. B.T.P Rajakaruna of No. 117, Kirillapone Road, Colombo 5 (Now residing at No. 117, Maya Avenue, Colombo 6)

1st and 2nd Defendants AND BETWEEN B.T.P. Rajakaruna of No. 177, Maya Avenue, Colombo 6 and No. 39/3, Auburnside, Dehiwela

2nd Defendant-Appellant Vs.

Vijitha Weerasinghe of No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda [Deceased]

Substituted 1^st Plaintiff-Respondent and Original 2^nd Plaintiff-Respondent Gladys Augusta Weerasinghe nee of Boralessa of No.

29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda.

Substituted 1st and 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent Epitawalage Eron Singho of No. 32/2, Walana Road, Panadura.

[Deceased]

1st Defendant-Respondent Jayasinhage Anula of No. 43/2, Galle Road, Walana, Panadura.

Substituted 1st Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN B.T.P Rajakaruna of No. 39/3, Auburnside, Dehiwala

2nd Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Vs.

Gladys Augusta Weerasinghe nee Boralessa of No. 29, Jambugasmulla Road, Nugegoda.

Substituted 1st and 2nd Plaintiff-Respondent-

Respondent Jayasinghe Anula, of No. 43/2, Galle Road, Walana, Panadura Substituted 1^st Defendant-Respondent-

Respondent Before: Buwaneka Aluwihare P.C., J.

Priyantha Jayawardene P.C., J.

Murdu N.B. Fernando P.C., J.

Counsel: Gamini Marapana, P.C. with Navin Marapana for the 2^nd Defendant-

Appellant-Appellant.

Ranjan Gooneratne with Sarath Walgamage for the Substituted 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents.

Argued on: 6th February 2020 Decided on: 20^th July 2023 Judgement Aluwihare PC. J, The central question of this appeal is the validity of a deed of gift executed in favour of the 1^st Defendant-Respondent by the donor, C.H. Weerasinghe. The Plaintiff’

argument was that C.H. Weerasinghe did not have the capacity to execute the deed of gift in issue, as he was a person of unsound mind and moved that the District Court declare the same null and void. The Defendant’s case on the other hand was that Weerasinghe had recovered from his illness and that he was in a good state of mind when he executed the impugned deed.

In concurrent findings, both the District Court as well as the Court of Appeal held that the impugned deed of gift is void. The present appeal is against the said findings. This Court granted leave to appeal in this matter on seven questions of law which are referred to in paragraph (15) of this judgement.

Factual background (1) The original Plaintiffs Gothamadattawa Weerasinghe (now deceased)

(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the ‘1st Plaintiff’) and Vijitha Weerasinghe (now deceased) (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the ‘2^nd Plaintiff’) are the widow and son respectively of one Charles Hector Weerasinghe (now deceased) (hereinafter sometimes referred to as C.H.

Weerasinghe’).

(2) The property in suit called “Meegahawatta” alias “Ambagahawatta” had been gifted to C.H. Weerasinghe by the original owners, Don Martinus Perera Weerasinghe and Dona Justina Peternella by Deed No. 217 dated

17^th August 1917.

(3) In Case No. 2221/LG, the District Court of Colombo, on the basis that said C.H. Weerasinghe, [the purported donor of the gift referred to above], was a person of unsound mind, appointed the 1^st Plaintiff’s wife as the Manager of his estate ‘until he was of sound mind and understanding’, as evidenced by the certified copies of the certificate of management dated 18^th September 1929, marked P2 (at page 568 of the Brief) and the security bond marked P3 (at page 570 of the Brief). This fac