1949 Present: Gratiaen J. and Pulle J.

PONNA,

Appellant, and MUTHUWA et. al., Respondents

S. C. 308-D. C. Kandy, 1,397

Partition Ordinance-Two adjacent portions of same Hand-Separate ownership- Common boundary not clearly demarcated-Partition action maintainable- Action for definition of boundaries-In what circumstances it wilt lie.

A person conveyed by two deeds the northern one-third share of his land to the plaintiff and the southern two-third share to the first defendant mentioning as the common boundary two landmarks which were thirteen feet away from each other within the limits of the land. Although it would have been practicable to demarcate a boundary so as to separate an area representing an exact one-third on the north from an area representing two-thirds on the south in such a manner that the two landmarks stood on the common boundary this result could have been achieved in an infinite variety of ways.

Held, that plaintiff was entitled to bring an action for partition and that an action for definition of boundaries did not lie.

The common law remedy of an action for definition of boundaries presupposes the prior exi