SAMARAKOON V. GUNASEKERA AND ANOTHER

SAMARAKOON V. GUNASEKERA AND ANOTHER

SUPREME COURT
AMARATUNGA, J.,
RATNAYAKE, J. AND
EKANAYAKE, J.
S. C. APPEAL NO. 84/2010
S.C. (H.C) CALA APPLICATION NO. 75/2010
NCP/HCCA/ARP 303/2007
D. C. ANURADHAPURA 17234/L
MAY 26TH, 2011

Evidence Ordinance - Section 68 - Proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested - Manner of proving such documents - Prevention of Frauds Ordinance - Section 2 and Section 4 - Deeds affecting immovable property to be executed before a notary and two witnesses.

In order to prove t he Plaintiffs title to the property which is the subject matter of the action, he produced at the trial the notarially executed deeds marked P3 to Ph which were marked subject to proof. No witnesses were called at the trial on behalf of the Plaintiff to prove the said deeds. At the end of the Plaintiffs case, when the Plaintiffs Counsel read in evidence the deeds produced in evidence marked P3 to P6. the defence had made an application to Court to exclude those documents which were not properly proved. The learned District Judge held that the documents P3 to P6 had not been properly proved and accordingly, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document