HEMALAL

Vs.

WELLANE CHANDRASIRI THERO

COURT OF APPEAL
J. DE SILVA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
CA 1192/98(F)
DC GALLE 10707/L
MARCH 27, 2019

Rei vindicatio action-Evidence Ordinance, section 116-Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, section 34-Prescription Ordinance, section 3-Civil Procedure Code, section 773-Prospective effect of a judgment-Locus standi-Estoppel

The plaintiff, as controlling Viharadhipathy of the temple, Instituted this action in the District Court seeking inter alia a declaration of title to the land in suit. The defendant claimed prescriptive title to the land. After trial, the District Court entered judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Before the Court of Appeal, the defendant made an application under section 773 of the Civil Procedure Code to lead fresh evidence to say the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the action, as it had been held in subsequent litigation that the plaintiff was not the lawful Viharadhipathi of the temple.

Held:

1. The defendant and her husband had entered into possession of the land as lessees under the then Viharadhipathi of the temple. In terms of section 116 of the Evidence Ordinance, the defendant is estopped from denying the lessor's title or from asserting that another person has a better title than the lessor.

2. If a person goes into possession of land as an agent for another, prescription does not begin to run until he has made it manifest that he is holding the land adversely to his principal. The evidence given by the defendant does not show an overt act whereby the defendant started to hold the land adversely to the owner.

3. Where title by prescription to Buddhist temple land had not been acquired prior to 1931, section 34 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance bars the acquisition of prescriptive title to temple land.

4. The question of the prospective application of judgments arises only when a decision by court on a point of law represents a change from what it was previously thought to be. This may be by an express overruling or a new interpretation of the relevant statutory provision or the creation of a new legal principle in common law. In this case, the subsequent judgment did not make a change on a point of law,

5. There is no application of the doctrine of res judicata in this instance, as at a minimum the parties and the cause of action are different. Hence the issue of estoppel does not arise.

Cases referred to:

1. D.A. Wanigaratne v. Juwanis Appuhamy et al 65 NLR 167
2. Siyaneris v. Jayasinghe Udenis De Silva 52 NLR 289
3. Wahab v. Jayah [1988] 1 Sri LR 78
4. Meeruppe Sumanatissa Terunnanse v. Warakapitiya Pangnananda Terunnanse 70 NLR 313
5. Kosgoda Pangnaseela v. Gamage Pavisthinahamy (1986) 3 CALR 48
6. Ven. Omare Dhammapala Thero v. Rajapakshage Peiris [2004] 1 Sri LR 1
7. Piyaratana Thero v. Jothiya and another [1985] 2 Sri LR 418
8. Chelliah v. Wijenathan et al 54 NLR 337
9. Bingham v. Miller (1848) 17 Ohio 445
10. Chevron Oil Co v. Huson 404 U.S. 97 (1971)
11. Great Northern Railway Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co 287 U.S. 358 (1932)
12. James B. Beam Distilling Co v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 543-44 (1991)
13. Harper v. VA Department of Taxation 509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993)

14. Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F. 3d 684, 690-95 (9th Cir. 2011)
15. Barnett v. First National Insurance Co of America, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99 at 104 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
16. State v. Jones 107 P.2d 324 (N.M. 1940)
17. James v. United States 366 U.S. 213 (1961)
18. Birmingham Corporation v. West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc (1970) AC 874, 898-899
19. Launchbury v. Morgans (1973) AC 127 at 137
20. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Lincoln City Council (1999) 2 AC 349 at 379
21. R v. National Insurance Commissioner, Exp. Hudson (1972) AC 944, 1015 at 1026
22. Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976) AC 443, 490
23. R v. Grovenor of Brockhill Prison, Exp. Evans (No. 2) (1999) QB 1043, 1058
24. Arthur JS Hall & Co v. Simon