MADUANWALA v. EKNELIGODA.

MADUANWALA v. EKNELIGODA.

D. C, Ratnapura, 727.

 

Prescriptive possession-Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, s. 3-" Adverse? possession--Difference between possession and occupation- Nature of occupation by tenant or licensee-Attempt to change occupation into possession by secret act adverse to owner.

A person who is let into occupation of property as a tenant, or as a licensee, must be deemed to continue to occupy on the footing on which he was admitted, until by some overt act he manifests his intention of occupying in another capacity. No secret act will avail to change the nature of his occupation.

Bonser, C.J.-Possession, as I understand it, is occupation either in person or by agent, with the intention of holding the land as owner.

Withers, J.-The " adverse " possession spoken of by the Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 implies use of occupation ut dominus.

THIS was an action in ejectment. The plaintiff averred that under a writ of execution sued out in case No. 7,477 of the District Court of Ratnapura on 12th February, 1861, against one Muttetuwegama Banda, Korale Mahatmaya, the Fiscal seized the land called Durayagodella, and sold the sam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document