IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal under Section 5C of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No: 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No: 54 of 2006.

Ratnayake Maudiyanselage Herath Banda, Thiththawella, Kubukgete.

Plaintiff Vs.

1. Ihala Welgamage Abeysinghe, Kalawellandawatta, Kumbukgete.

2. G.G. Sanjeewa Karunaratne, No. 15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

3. Pushpa Karunaratne, No.15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

Defendants AND

1. Ihala Welgamage Abeysinghe, Kalawellandawatta, Kumbukgete.

2. G.G. Sanjeewa Karunaratne, No. 15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

3. Pushpa Karunaratne, No.15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

Defendants- Appellants Vs.

Ratnayake Maudiyanselage Herath Banda, Thiththawella, Kubukgete.

Plaintiff- Respondent AND NOW Ratnayake Maudiyanselage Herath Banda, Thiththawella, Kubukgete.

Plaintiff- Respondent-Appellant Vs.

1. Ihala Welgamage Abeysinghe, Kalawellandawatta, Kumbukgete.

2. G.G. Sanjeewa Karunaratne, No. 15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

3. Pushpa Karunaratne, No.15, Jayawardane Place, Hill Street, Dehiwala.

Defendants- Appellants-

Respondents BEFORE: MURDU N.B.FERNANDO, PC, J.

YASANTHA KODAGODA, PC, J.

K.KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J.

COUNSEL: Jacob Joseph for the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant Roshan Dayaratne instructed by R.Gamage for the Defendant-Appellant-Respondents.

th WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: By the Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant on 28 th of November, 2014 and 8 of April 2022.

By the Defendant-Appellant-Respondent on th th

6 of January, 2015 and 15 of March 2022.

ARGUED ON: 21.02.2022. DECIDED ON: 12.06.2023.

K. KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of the North Western Province, Kurunegala dated 27.03.2014 which set aside the judgment of the District Court of Kurunegala, case bearing No: 6014/L dated 30.04.2007.

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”) instituted the initial action before the District Court of Kurunegala against the Defendants-Appellants-Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”) seeking a declaration that the Appellant is entitled to the land described in the schedule to the Plaint, ejectment of the Defendants from the subject land and claiming damages. The Respondents sought the dismissal of the Appellants’ action and claimed prescriptive title to the property.

After the conclusion of the trial, the District Court delivered the Judgment in favour of the Appellant and ordered damages to be paid till vacant possession is given to the Appellant. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Respondents appealed to the High Court of the Northwestern Province, Kurunegala. In the Judgment of the High Court, it was held that the Appellant’s action being a Rei Vindicatio action, the Appellant had to prove the title to the land in the suit and the Deed marked “P2” produced by the Appellant does not refer to the crown grant given to the vendor, the father of the vendees in “P2”. The Learned High Court Judges presumed that the land has been granted under the Land Development Ordinance and questioned whether the correct legal procedure under the said act was followed by the vendor of the Deed marked P2 when alienating the land to the Appellant. Since the crown grant was not produced, their Lordships applied the presumption in Section 114(F) of the Evidence Ordinance and held that no title was passed to the Appellant.

The Appellant is before this Court challenging the said Judgment. This Court by Order dated 17.10.2014, granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law stated in paragraph 24 (i) to (vi) of the Petition dated 07.05.2014, as set out below.

1. Did the High Court of the Northwestern Province Kurunegala err in law in holding that the Petitioner has not proved the title to the land in the suit?

2. Did the High Court act on assumptions and presumptions which were not warrant