This judgment
concerns the propriety of a final decree entered in a partition action. The
case revolves around the question as to whether a party who was entitled to notice of a partition action can
still intervene and prevent a miscarriage of justice when they have had no notice of the action.
Rev Induruwe Dammanada vs Piyatissa
(Read online)
Section 5 of
the Partition Act requires the plaintiff in a partition action to include in
his plaint as parties to the action all persons who, whether in actual
possession or not, to his knowledge are entitled or claim to be entitled to
any right, share or interest to, of, or in the land to which the action relates,
whether vested or contingent, and whether by way of mortgage, lease, usufruct,
servitude, trust, life interest, or otherwise or to any improvements made or
effected on or to the land subject to
certain exceptions with regard to mortgagors.
The judgment
reaffirms that the powers of revision and restitutio in integrum of the Court
of Appeal are unaffected by the I.D or Final Decree.
Vide Somawathie
v. Madawala (click to
read online)
The judgment goes on to
argue that the failure to give notice to interested parties in this case was a
glaring lapse that tainted the entire proceedings, and that the inclusion of
lots that were not part of the corpus of land being partitioned was a serious
error that should be rectified.
Comments
Post a Comment