GODAMUNE vs MAGILINNONA COURT OF APPEAL SALAM

GODAMUNE
vs
MAGILINNONA

COURT OF APPEAL
SALAM. J
CA 396/2006 (F)
DC COLOMBO 17237/L
MAY 26, 2008

Right of way of necessity - Purchase of a landlocked subdivided portion of a larger land - Is he entitled in law to seek a way of necessity over the adjacent land? - Can a splitting of a land impose a servitude upon the neighbours?

The plaintiff-respondent claimed a servitude consisting of a right of way based on prescription, and also access by way of necessity over a land owned by the defendant. The trial Judge rejected the claim based on prescription but came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to use the strip of land as a way of necessity.

The defendant-appellant contended that, a person who had purchased a landlocked sub divided portion of a larger land which had a road frontage to a public road is not entitled in law to seek a way of necessity over the adjacent land, without making a claim for such a way against his vendor or the owners of the other subdivided lots of the larger land.

Held:

(1) An owner of a land, who by his own act deprives himself of access to a road is not entitled to claim a righ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document