GALLELAWBLOGGER

  New Law Reports   Volume 62, Page No 158   1958 Present : Basnayake, C.J., and Sinnetamby, J.   P.M. COORAY et al., Appellants, and M. A. P. WIJESURIYA, Respondent   S. C. 26-D. C. Kalutara, 29505/L   Partition action-Duty of Court to examine title of each party-Proof of pedigree-Statements in deeds-Evidential value thereof-Partition Act, No. 16 of 1951,. ss. 25, 26 (f), 48-Evidence Ordinance, S8. 32 (5), 32 (6), 50 (2).   Section 25 of the Partition Act imposes on the Court the obligation to' examine carefully the title of each party to the action. Before a Court can accept as correct a share which is stated in a deed to, belong to the vendor there must be clear and unequivocal proof of how the vendor became entitled to that share. Apart from proof by the production of birth, death and marriage certificates, the relevant provisions of the Evidence Ordinance in regard to proof of a pedigree are to be found in section' 32 (5), ...

  New Law Reports Volume 62, Page No 158 View - Volume 62 New Law Reports 158 1958 Present : Basnayake, C.J., and Sinnetamby, J. P.M. COORAY et al., Appellants, and M. A. P. WIJESURIYA, Respondent S. C. 26-D. C. Kalutara, 29505/L     Partition action-Duty of Court to examine title of each party-Proof of pedigree-Statements in deeds-Evidential value thereof-Partition Act, No. 16 of 1951,. ss. 25, 26 (f), 48-Evidence Ordinance, S8. 32 (5), 32 (6), 50 (2). Section 25 of the Partition Act imposes on the Court the obligation to' examine carefully the title of each party to the action. Before a Court can accept as correct a share which is stated in a deed to, belong to the vendor there must be clear and unequivocal proof of how the vendor became entitled to that share. Apart from proof by the production of birth, death and marriage certificates, the relevant provisions of the Evidence Ordinance in regard to proof of a pedigree are to be found in section' 32 (5), 32 (6) a...

  Summary of Jayasinghage Abeysuriya v. Jayasinghage Premarathna Jayasinghe (C.A. No. 1005/1997) This was a partition action concerning the ownership and devolution of title to land . The main dispute was whether Sirisena (the 4th Defendant) was the son of Rankira , who was claimed to be a son of Sethuwa Weda , one of the children of the original owner, Sarana. 1. The issue The Appellants claimed title through the following chain: Sarana → Sethuwa Weda → Rankira → Sirisena → Ukku Amma → Appellants The Plaintiffs disputed the crucial links in this chain, particularly whether: Rankira was the son of Sethuwa Weda; and Sirisena was the son of Rankira. The District Court rejected the Appellants' claim because they had not produced a birth certificate proving Sirisena's paternity . 2. Evidence concerning Rankira The Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient evidence that Rankira was the son of Sethuwa Weda . A previous plaint filed in 1972 by the Plaintiffs...