Present: Lascelles C.J. and Wood Renton J.

SILVA v. APPUHAMY.

87-D. C. Kurunegala, 4,288.

Possessory action-Proof of possession for a year and a day essential- Plaintiff may take advantage of predecessor's possession-Action for declaration of title-Court may ex mero motu grant possessory decree.

In a possessory action a plaintiff might take advantage of his predecessor's possession; it is not necessary that he should himself have had a year and a day's possession.

In an action for declaration of title there is nothing to prevent the Court from granting a possessory decree ex mero motu when all the necessary evidence is before it.

Obiter,-Section 4 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 has not dispensed with the requirement of the common law that to maintain a possessory action proof of possession for a year and a day prior to ouster is essential except in cases of ouster by violence.

THE facts are set out in the following judgment of the District Judge (Bertram Hill, Esq.): -

Plaintiff in this case leased Ambagahawatta from one Punchappu hamy in March, 1910. He complains that the defendant, who has no right to the land, ousted him in about January or F