Silinduhamy Et Al., V. Weeraperuma

1954 Present: Sansoni J. and Fernando A.J.

K. K. SILINDUHAMY et al., Appellants, and
P. WEERAPERUMA, Respondent

S. C. 181-D. C. Galle, 4,395

Res judicata-Several previous but conflicting decisions-Principles applicable then-Partition action.

In an action for the partition of what was described by the plaintiff as a land consisting of two portions (A and B) the contesting defendants took up the position that the two portions were distinct and separate lands in one of which the plaintiff had no share and, therefore, that the two lands could not be joined in one action for partition.

There had been three earlier actions-Cases Nos. 1, 2 and 3-in regard to the same point in dispute. In Case Ho. 1 it was held that portions A and B constituted one land. On this question it was decided in Case No. 2 that the previous decree in Case No. 1 was res judicata. The question arose again in Case No. 3 where the defendants pleaded the decree in Case No. 1 as res, judicata, but the decree in Case No. 2 was not pleaded as res judicata. It was

however, decided in Case No. 3 that A and B were two separate adjoining lands. In Case No. 3 the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document