Rei Vindicatio Action – Land Development Ordinance – Grant and Permit Discrepancy – Superior Title – Compensation for Improvements – Jurisdiction of District Court – Section 23 of Interpretation Ordinance – Article 35 of the Constitution

-

 

Marimuttu Shanmugam (Deceased) v. D.M. Gunapala

Citation: SC Appeal No. 157/2017

Judges: Vijith K. Malalgoda, PC, J; Janak De Silva, J; Arjuna Obeyesekere, J

Date of Judgment: 6th August 2024

Headnote:

Rei Vindicatio Action – Land Development Ordinance – Grant and Permit Discrepancy – Superior Title – Compensation for Improvements – Jurisdiction of District Court – Section 23 of Interpretation Ordinance – Article 35 of the Constitution

 

SUMMARY BY BLOGGER

In a long-standing dispute regarding the ownership and possession of a land parcel in Polonnaruwa, the Supreme Court deliberated on the competing claims of the Plaintiff, Marimuttu Shanmugam, and the Defendant, D.M. Gunapala. The case primarily revolved around whether the Plaintiff held a superior title to the disputed land, comprising Lots G and H, by virtue of a grant issued under the Land Development Ordinance, despite an earlier permit suggesting a different allocation.

Background:

The litigation initiated in 2007 with the Plaintiff seeking a declaration of title over the land described in the grant P1, claiming the Defendant unlawfully occupied the land. The Defendant contended that the land occupied by him was allocated to his father under permit V1, distinct from the Plaintiff's land. The District Court originally favored the Plaintiff but allowed the Defendant to remain in possession until compensated for improvements. On appeal, the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the Plaintiff to approach the Supreme Court.

 

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff established a superior title in a rei vindicatio action.

2. The effect of discrepancies between the extent of land in the permit and the subsequent grant.

3. The Defendant's right to compensation for improvements made on the land.

4. The jurisdiction of the District Court under the Land Development Ordinance in light of Section 23 of the Interpretation Ordinance and Article 35 of the Constitution.

 

Precedents Discussed:

Mihindukulasuriya Sudath Harrison Pinto v. Weerappulige Piyaseeli Fernando: Emphasized the need for the plaintiff to establish ownership in rei vindicatio actions.

Pathirana v. Jayasundera: Reinforced that ownership is essential in vindicating property rights.

Banda v. Soyza: Discussed the criterion of superior title in resolving disputes over land ownership.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment, reinstating the District Court's findings with modifications. It concluded that the Plaintiff had established a superior title to the land based on the grant P1, despite the absence of identical extents in the prior permit. The Court held that the Defendant failed to substantiate his claim for compensation due to lack of evidence regarding the value of improvements. Consequently, the Defendant's right to retain possession was nullified. The Supreme Court clarified that while the permit and grant are interlinked processes under the Land Development Ordinance, the extent delineated in a grant, which is surveyed and demarcated, supersedes that of the initial permit when discrepancies arise.


READ JUDGMENT WITH AN EFFORTLESS CLICK


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