Hevawitarane vs. Dangan Rubber Co. Ltd.3 Wood Renton A.C.J declared; “Any co-owner, or a party claiming under such a co-owner, is entitled to eject a trespasser from the whole of the common property,” also was of the view that “prima facie evidence of title is all that is required in such an action.”

-

 




Supreme Court appeal case No. 16/2013

 

A judgment highlighting need for clear evidence in property disputes, such as co-ownership, constructive trusts, and prescriptive rights.

Background of the Dispute

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to the subject matter, eviction of the defendants and damages. The defendants submitted that the deed of transfer No. 1632 was merely a security for a loan, not an actual transfer of ownership. They claimed a constructive trust existed in favor of the first defendant, asserting no rights were passed to Mahindaratne. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them the reliefs prayed for.

The High Court set aside the District Court's judgment, ruling that the property was undivided and the plaintiffs had not established prescriptive title or exclusive ownership.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its finding of co-ownership. The evidence supported that the plaintiffs had exclusive ownership of the disputed lot. The Court ruled that the land was properly partitioned, and the plaintiffs' title to the specific portion was valid. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established prescriptive title through uninterrupted possession. The Court noted that the defendants' occupation of the land was based on leave and license, not ownership, and the constructive trust claim was not substantiated.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and affirmed the District Court's judgment, recognizing the plaintiffs' title to the property and their right to evict the defendants.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that a co-owner can sue a trespasser to establish title and seek eviction. The Court applied established precedents that co-owners can maintain actions against trespassers and claim prescriptive rights over a specific portion of undivided land. 

Prima Facie Evidence of Title: The plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to prove their title to the land.

License and Possession: The defendants' possession was deemed subordinate and by permission, not ownership.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming their exclusive ownership of the property and their right to evict the defendants. The judgment highlights  the importance of clear evidence in property disputes and the legal principles governing co-ownership, constructive trusts, and prescriptive rights.

 

Click and read judgment

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more