GALLELAWBLOGGER

  Validity of an Affidavit Executed Before the Petition Was Signed.   The issue is whether a petition is rendered invalid merely because the supporting affidavit was affirmed, sworn or signed on a date earlier than the date on which the petition itself was signed. Distilleries Company Ltd. v. Kariyawasam and Others, CA L.A. 163/2001, reported in [2001] 3 Sri L.R. 119: Whether an affidavit may be affirmed anterior to the date on which the petition was subscribed and nevertheless “support” that petition. 1. Distilleries Company Ltd. v. Kariyawasam and Others In Distilleries Company Ltd. v. Kariyawasam and Others, the Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that the chronological sequence alone necessarily invalidates the application. The decision, as summarised in the attachment, proceeded on the basis that the function of the affidavit is to provide prima facie evidentiary support for the material facts contained in the petition. An affidavit affirmed before the...

  MOHAMED KALID SITTI FATHUMA AND OTHERS v. MOHAMED FAHIM WADOOD AND ANOTHER   SC Appeal No. 45/2017 CA Appeal No. 1178/98 (F) DC Galle No. 8972/P Supreme Court of Sri Lanka   Before: P. Padman Surasena, C.J.; Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.; and Arjuna Obeyesekere, J. Judgment by: Samayawardhena, J.- Decided: 13 January 2026   Partition - Competing pedigrees - Paper title - Occupants claiming rights to superstructure - Claim of prescriptive title to an undivided one-half share - Whether prescription can operate in respect of an unidentified undivided share - Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance - Burden of proof after establishment of documentary title - Possession commencing permissively or as licensee - Long possession - Payment of assessment rates - Need to prove adverse and independent possession - Starting point of prescription - Allegation of collusive partition action - Lapse of twelve years after execution of transfer deed - Importance of pleadings and properl...

  An ex parte case is not a gift to the plaintiff. The defendant’s absence removes the opposition; it does not remove the plaintiff’s burden. The judge must still be satisfied, on the evidence placed before the Court, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed. If there is no satisfactory evidence, the action must be dismissed. Main statutory basis Section 85(1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the plaintiff may place evidence before Court by affidavit or oral testimony and move for judgment, but the Court may enter judgment only “if satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed”, either fully or with modification. So the judge has a duty to look at the evidence. He is not a rubber stamp. Leading cases and principles 1. LOLC Factors Limited v. Airtouch International (Pvt) Ltd and Others SC/CHC/Appeal/20/2015, Supreme Court, decided on 03.04.2024 This is the most useful modern authority. The Supreme Court held that, under section 85(1), the plaint...

SLR 2004 Volume 2 Page 294 294 DISSANAYAKE V DISSANAYAKE AND OTHERS COURT OF APPEAL SOMAWANSA, J. MS. EKANAYAKE, J. C.ANO.962/2000(F) D.C.GAMPAHA28231/P MARCH 9, 26, 2004 Partition Law, 21 of 1977 section 12 - Ouster - Speculative purchaser - Evaluation of Evidence - Evidence Ordinance Section 3 - Section 50 -Relevancy - Opinion as to relationship - applicability - Co-owner's possession - Partition Act, No. 16 of 1951 - Sections 20, 25, 61 - Is the declaration under section 12 a procedural step only? Held "PerSomawansa, J. "While conceding that the learned District Judge has failedto evaluate the evidence placed before him on the question of prescriptive right of the contesting defendants, it appears that on an examination of totality of evidence, he has come to a correct finding." 295 (i) Section 25 of the Act makes it obligatory on the court to scrutinize, quite indepently of what may or may not do, the title of each party before any share is allotted to him. (ii) ...