Skip to main content

Search This Blog

GALLELAW BLOGGER

Pages

Home

Fraud or Deception- No formal proof of the ‘execution’ is warranted. EVIDENCE SEC 70 Section 68 of the Partition Law

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

- June 18, 2021

EVIDENCE PARTITION PROOF OF DEED

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

- August 10, 2024

TRUST - A presentation - October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader] "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER October 29, 2016 TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI ...

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

- June 08, 2024

The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand] The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property. The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...

some selected

Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o... read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...

Powered by Blogger

Theme images by Radius Images

GALLELAW

GALLELAW BLOGGER

Followers

Search This Blog

Labels

Section 66 PARTITION TRUST 1 CRIMINAL lAW CIVIL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LICENSEES CIVIL Procedure suspended sentence

BAIL ARTICLE contempt EVIDENCE contempt of court maintenance CONSTITUTION REI VINDICATIO confiscation APPEAL Revision fundamental rights ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WRIT ETC CONTRACT declaration of title default Judicature Act TESTAMENTARY state land Aa Music mines and mineral per incuriam COMMERCIAL INJUNCTION LAST WILL PARTITION ESSAYS prescription among co-owners CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST JURISDICTION Judicature Act Section 48 PROOF OF DEED damages prescription CRIMINAL CUSTORDY MUSLIM LAW Divorce Forgery AFFIDAVIT Air CHEQUE CIVIL APPEAL EJECTMENT EQD TORT TRADE MARK misconduct parttition possessory action Antiquities ICCRP PURGE DEFAULT SC RULE interpretation judicial officers language of courts licensee state decisis working ADMIRALTY DEBT RECOVERY GIFT ISSUES Judicature Sec 48 Judicial ethics Laesio Enormis Medical Neglegence SHAM TRANSACTION SUSPENSION OF lAWYERS c comany law ex debito justitiae exceptio f judgment maintence servitude transfer

Show more Show less

Articles

Transport of Minerals — Non-Mechanical Conveyance Transporting minerals by bullock cart or wheelbarrow or even on horseback, or by any other weight carrying beast may not attract confiscation so long as the conveyance is not a “mechanically propelled vehicle.” This gap undercuts the policy referred to in the SC judgment and weakens enforcement against illicit mineral movement. Equality concern: A person using a mechanically propelled vehicle faces confiscation, while another moving the same minerals by non-mechanical means (bullock cart, wheelbarrow, or manual carriage such as on weight bearing beast i.e elephant, donkey etc) does not—a distinction that may be arbitrary unless justified.

- September 04, 2025

The judgment that prompted a CPC amendment. ******* the last paragraph of the Judgment is as follows.....................Before I part with this judgment, I feel obliged to point out the inordinate delay that always takes place in the final disposal of suits where the intervening right of appeal granted under 88(2) of the CPC is exercised. These appeals are also usually listed and taken up for argument along with other appeals, unless they are accelerated. To remedy this injustice, timely intervention by the legislature has now become necessary. The legislature therefore should take such a policy decision and lay down guidelines to enable the appellate courts to dispose of these appeals without much delay, as such appeals are relatively uncomplicated in nature, to facilitate the resolution of the substantial dispute. This may be achieved at least by prescribing a minimum time limit for the conclusion of such appeals or by granting priority towards their disposal over the other appeals of the Court of Appeal and the Provincial Civil Appellate High Courts. . PC 86(2)- RESULTANT DELAY BY REASON OF INTERVENING APPEALS-NEED TO REMEDY THE SITUATION-OBITER- FAILURE TO ADDUCE REASONS FOR THE DEFAULT- CONSEQUENCES

- September 05, 2025

The Defendant raised no objection to the appeal. Having waved the right to object and having submitted to jurisdiction, he has for the first time raised the objection before this Court. He has cited the judgments in Ranaweera and other v. Sub-Inspector Wilson Siriwardena and others8 , Rodrigo v. Raymond9 and Nawinna Kottage Dona Lalitha Padmini and Another v. N.K.D. Pradeepa Nishanthi Kumari and Another10 in support of his contention. In W.G.T. Panikkiya v. W.G. Sedarama and others11 it has been observed that the District Judge is not bound to mechanically transmit an appeal filed out of time to the Court of Appeal. I am also of the view that he is entitled to consider whether it could be accepted and forwarded. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff cited the judgment in the Ceylon Brewery Limited v. Jax Fernando, Proprietor, Maradana Wine Stores12 where an application to set aside an ex-parte decree filed out of time came into consideration. This Court has held that the provisions which go into the jurisdiction must be strictly complied with. In Wickremasinghe v. De Silva13 the issue with regard to tendering a petition of appeal out of time came into consideration. Justice Soza in his judgment, has observed while graciously quoting Soertsz, J. “Such requirements must be put before the interests of individuals and Courts have no power to absolve from them” In De Silva v. Seenathumma14 it was held that the time limit in preferring an appeal should reasonably be complied with and Court has no power to absolve the party from failing to adhere to the peremptory requirements of the law. Article 138 of the Constitution confers the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to exercise appellate and revisionary jurisdiction. The said jurisdiction had been conferred to the Provincial High Court under Section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 56 of 2007. Section 5A of the Act reads thus; ‘(1) A High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution for a Province, shall have and exercise appellate and revisionary jurisdiction in respect of judgments, decrees and orders delivered and made by any District Court, Family Court or Small Claims Court within such Province and the appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law, which shall be committed by any such of a District Court, of a Family Court or of a Small Claims Court, as the case may be. (2) The provisions of sections 23 to 27 of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978 and sections 753 to 760 and sections 765 to 777 of the Civil Procedure Code and of any written law applicable to the exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in subsection (1) by the Court of Appeal, shall be read and construed as including a reference to a High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution for a Province and any person aggrieved by any judgment, decree or order of a District Court, of a Family Court or of a Small Claims Court, as the case may be, within a Province, may invoke the jurisdiction referred to in that subsection, in the High Court established for that Province: Provided that no judgment or decree of a District Court, of a Family Court or of a Small Claims Court, as the case may be, shall be reversed or varied by the High Court on account of any error, defect or irregularity, which has not prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties or occasioned a failure of justice.’ Hence, the Civil Appellate High Court is vested with the jurisdiction to deal with appeals which initially vested with the Court of Appeal by Article 138 of the Constitution. The procedure in preferring an appeal to exercise the said jurisdiction is provided in the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, any failure in procedure in invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Appellate High Court is not patent but latent lack of jurisdiction.

- September 06, 2025

At the conclusion of a default inquiry Defendant sought to purge default under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming incapacity due to spinal injury from a fall. Applications to set aside ex-parte decrees must be supported by credible and consistent evidence. Courts retain discretion to assess the probative value of documents, even if admitted without objection or marked “subject to proof.”

- September 05, 2025

confiscation of several modes of transport without enabling provisions is deprivation of property rights and tantamouts to violation of fundamental right to hold property.

- July 10, 2024

Revision is exceptional; it is not a substitute for a missed appeal. On that basis, the Supreme Court held the trial judge had properly investigated the title under s.25; the High Court was right to find no exceptional ground for revision.

- September 04, 2025

COURT OF APPEAL - RULES

- September 08, 2025

Prescription Ordinance s.10: Claims under Laesio Enormis must be raised within 3 years; delay extinguishes right. Laesio Enormis (Roman-Dutch Law): Remedy for injustice where property sold for less than half value without knowledge of true worth. Not applicable if seller knew value or never intended sale. Subsequent Purchasers: The Doctrine does not operate against bona fide transferees; it is limited only to original parties. Equity: Law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over rights.

- September 06, 2025

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

- August 10, 2024

A 16-year-old schoolboy was arrested by the Acting OIC over an alleged jewellery theft; he was beaten on the soles and chilli extract was squeezed into his eyes, detained with an unrelated adult, and produced before the Magistrate only two days later. The mother was denied access though the boy called out to her at the station. He was later acquitted in the MC case.

- September 01, 2025