IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of section 5(c) of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 as amended by Act No. 54 of

2006.

S.C. Appeal No: Bogoda Arachchige Manoratne, 153/2016 No.45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama.

SC (HC) CALA No: PLAINTIFF

169/2014 Vs.

WP/HCCA/GPH No: 1. Collure Appuhamilage

57/08(F) Somasiri Collure, Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama.

District Court of Gampaha 2. Dayananda Collure, Case No: 35508/L No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama.

DEFENDANTS AND

1. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collure, ‘Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama.

2. Dayananda Collure, No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama. DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS Vs.

Bogoda Arachchige Manortne, No. 45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND BETWEEN Bogoda Arachchige Manortne, No. 45, Amugodella Road, Biyagama.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-

APPELLANT Vs.

1. Collure Appuhamilage Somasiri Collure, ‘Thakshila’, No. 42, Biyagama.

2. Dayananda Collure, No. 43, Malwana, Biyagama.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENTS Before : S. Thurairaja, P.C., J.

: A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J.

: Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

Counsel : Manohara De Silva, P.C. with Hirosha Munasinghe instructed by L.K.I. Perera for the Plaintiff-

Respondent-Appellant.

: Dr. Sunil Coorey instructed by Diana Stephanie Rodrigo for the Defendant-Appellant-Respondents.

Argued on : 04-08-2025 Written Submissions : 19-09-2025 and 15-03-2021 (By the Defendant-

Appellant-Respondents)

: 09-09-2025 and 23-09-2019 (By the Plaintiff-

Respondent-Appellant)

Decided on : 19-11-2025 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) on being aggrieved of the judgment pronounced by the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Gampaha while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction.

The said judgment has been pronounced on 06-03-2014, whereby the judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge of Gampaha on 06-06- 2008, which was a judgment pronounced in favour of the plaintiff, was set aside.

Having set aside the District Court judgment, the learned Judges of the High Court have allowed reliefs as prayed for in prayer ආ, ඇ in the answer of the defendants before the District Court.

When this matter was supported for leave to appeal on 03-08-2016, this Court granted leave on the questions of law as set out in paragraph 13(B) to (H) of the petition dated 04-04-2014.

However, when the matter was taken up before the Court for argument on 04- 08-2025, both the learned Counsel who represented the parties agreed that it would be sufficient to confine their arguments to the questions of law covered under paragraph 13(B) and (C) of the petition of appeal.

The said questions of law read as follows, 1. Did the learned Judges of the Provincial High Court err in law in allowing the appeal of the defendant-appellant-respondent at a time when there was no prayer to set aside or vary the judgment of the trial Court and if the said judgment has no force or avail in law.

2. Did the learned Judges of the Provincial High Court have erred on the fundamental principles of the law in relation to a case of this nature in granting the relief prayed for in the absence of any evidence to establish a right of way by prescriptive user.

At the hearing of this appeal, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel who represented the plaintiff, and also the submissions of the learned Counsel who represented the defendant-appellant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). This Court also had the benefit of considering the pre-argument written submissions and the post-argument written submissions tendered by the parties.

Although the 1st question of law revolves around a legal question as to the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, I find it appropriate to consider the facts related to this matter before I would venture into considering the questions of law under which th