IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01.

Plaintiff SC APPEAL NO: SC/APPEAL/40/2014 SC LA NO: SC/HCCA/LA/244/2010 HCCA NO: UVA/HCCA/BDL/82/2003 (F)

DC BADULLA CASE NO: L/947 Vs.

A.C. Rajasingham, No. 03/C, Bandarawela Road, Badulla.

Defendant AND BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01.

Plaintiff-Appellant Vs.

A.C. Rajasingham, No. 03/C, Bandarawela Road, Badulla.

Defendant-Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Bank of Ceylon, No. 04, Bank of Ceylon Mawatha, Colombo 01.

Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Vs.

A.C. Rajasingham, No. 03/C, Bandarawela Road, Badulla.

Defendant-Respondent-Respondent (deceased)

1. Jenita Margret Swarnabai, Rajasingham nee Rajamoni, No. 03, Bandarawela Road, Badulla.

2. Amanda Priyadarshani Rajasingham, No. 03, Bandarawela Road, Badulla.

3. Aaron Dhayalan Rajasingham, Presently at Flat 16 Building 8, Al Kharaib, Street 920, Najma, Doha Qatar.

Substituted Defendant-Respondent-

Respondents Before: Vijith K. Malalgoda, P.C., J.

P. Padman Surasena, J.

Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.

Counsel: Jagath Wickramanayake, P.C., with Pujanee De Alwis for the Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant.

H. Withanachchi with Shantha Karunadhara for the Defendant-Respondent-Respondent.

Argued on : 11.01.2023 Written submissions:

by the Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant on 28.02.2014 and

13.10.2022 by the Defendant-Respondent-Respondent on 28.04.2017.

Decided on: 04.07.2023 Samayawardhena, J.

Introduction The plaintiff (Bank of Ceylon) filed this action in the District Court of Badulla seeking declaration of title to, ejectment of the defendant from, the land described in the second schedule to the plaint, and damages. The defendant filed answer seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s action. After trial, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action. On appeal, the High Court of Civil Appeal of Badulla affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

This Court granted leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court on three questions suggested by the plaintiff (1^st to 3^rd below) and one suggested by the defendant (4th below). They read as follows:

(1) Did the High Court make a fundamental error in construing the nature of the action in view of the fact that the defendant not having claimed adverse title against the plaintiff?

(2) Did the High Court err with regard to standard of proof in an action for declaration of title when the defendant does not set up adverse title as against the plaintiff?

(3) Did the High Court err in the assessment of the title deed P1 produced at the trial?

(4) Can the plaintiff in a rei vindicatio action prove title by mere production of his title deed without predecessor’s title being proved as in this action?

There is no issue regarding the identification of the land/premises in suit. No such issue was ever raised in the District Court. Therefore this Court cannot be misled by making submissions on the identification of the land. The simple case for the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the land by deed of transfer marked P1 at the trial and the defendant is in unlawful occupation of the land. He is a trespasser. The deed P1 was not marked subject to proof. The plaintiff did not think it necessary to prove the devolution of title, and rightly so. This is not a partition case to prove the pedigree. The defendant never claimed ownership of the property by deed or by prescription or any other mode. His position was that he occupied the premises in suit as an employee of Browns & Co. on payment of rent and Brown & Co. was closed down on 22.11.1994 and from that day he is not an employee of that company. He further admits that he is in unlawful occupation of the premises since 22.12.1994. He has been paid compensation for the termination of his employment by his former employer and thereafter that amount has been enhanced by the Labour Tribunal. It is clear that he thinks the compensation aw