RAM MENIKA v. APPUHAMY

Evidence of prescriptive possession-Ordinance No. 12 of 1840, s. 6-Evidence to rebut presumption in favour of Crown-Possession for a third of a century-In what class of cases such presumption arises.

The Sand in dispute between the parties was situated in a district formerly within the Kandyan territory. In an action brought by plaintiff against the defendant, who was a purchaser under the Crown, plaintiff led evidence to show that the land was an appurtenance to a field which she inherited from her ancestors. Though the land appeared to be a chena, and presumably the property of the Crown, under section 6 of the Ordinance No. 12 of 1840,-

Held, that the District Judge rightly allowed plaintiff as part of his case to lead evidence of title by prescriptive possession, and that defendant's counsel ought not to have refused to cross-examine the witness, who deposed to such possession.

Held, further, that, upon the defendant producing the Crown grant in his name, plaintiff had the right to rebut the presumption in favour of the Crown.

LAWRIE, A.C.J.-Possession of land in district!? formerly with