Failure to demonstrate adverse possession for over ten years. Their occupation derived from family arrangements and a lease agreement, evidencing recognition of plaintiff’s father’s title. No “overt unequivocal act” of ouster was shown (Peiris, Law of Property in Sri Lanka, vol. I). Prescription requires possession adverse to paper title; burden lies on party claiming it (Robosingho Mudalali v. Jayawardena (1965) 72 NLR 193). Findings of trial judge affirmed.

 

HEADNOTE - by Blogger

VITHANA PATHIRENNEHELAGE PREMARATNE v. V.P. JAYARATNE & OTHERS
Supreme Court—Murdu N.B. Fernando, PC, C.J.; Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J.; Arjuna Obeyesekere, J.
S.C. Appeal No. 78/2018; S.C./HCCA/LA No. 336/2017; WP/HCCA/AV 1675/2017(F); D.C. Pugoda 669/P
Argued: 04.11.2022 — Decided: 24.07.2025

sc_appeal_78_2018

Partition—Prescription—Adverse possession—Burden of proof—Lease agreement negating prescription—Buildings and plantations—Accessio—Compensation for improvements—Appurtenant land.

The plaintiff sought partition of land at Pugoda on the basis that he and the 1st defendant (his brother) were entitled to 513/640 and 9/640 undivided shares, respectively, the balance devolving on the heirs of Jamis Perera Wanigasuriya. The 2nd–5th defendants, relations in occupation of the land, denied the pedigree and claimed prescriptive title, asserting long possession and construction of permanent buildings.

The District Court dismissed the action, holding (i) identity of corpus not established, (ii) pedigree not proved, and (iii) prescription not established as the defendants failed to identify the portion claimed and occupation was pursuant to a lease (1997) granted by the plaintiff’s father. The High Court, on appeal, reversed findings on identity and pedigree, held the plaintiff’s case proved, and rejected the plea of prescription. It nevertheless allowed compensation to defendants for buildings and plantations, while refusing soil rights, citing Kanagasabai v. Mylvaganam (1976) 78 NLR 280 on the principle of accessio.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the questions of law concerned (i) entitlement of defendants to buildings and appurtenant land, and (ii–iv) whether prescription had been conclusively decided against them and whether they were estopped from raising it.

---

Held

1.   Prescription not proved. The defendants failed to demonstrate adverse possession for over ten years. Their occupation derived from family arrangements and a lease agreement, evidencing recognition of plaintiff’s father’s title. No “overt unequivocal act” of ouster was shown (Peiris, Law of Property in Sri Lanka, vol. I). Prescription requires possession adverse to paper title; burden lies on party claiming it (Robosingho Mudalali v. Jayawardena (1965) 72 NLR 193). Findings of trial judge affirmed.

 

2.   No soil rights or appurtenant land. In law, buildings form part of the land by accession (Omne quod inaedificatur solo solo cedit). Absent prescription, defendants cannot claim soil rights or land. They are only entitled to compensation for improvements and plantations under 50 years.

 

3.   Questions of law (2–4). District Court answered prescription against defendants; no appeal was necessary as plaint was dismissed. High Court nevertheless considered the issue. Defendants not estopped from raising prescription before the Supreme Court, but they failed on merits.

 

4.   Result. High Court judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed. Defendants entitled only to compensation for improvements, not land. District Court directed to enter interlocutory decree and proceed under the Partition Act. No costs.

 

 

Cases referred to

• Kanagasabai v. Mylvaganam (1976) 78 NLR 280
• Robosingho Mudalali v. Jayawardena (1965) 72 NLR 193
• Peiris, Law of Property in Sri Lanka, Vol. I (pp. 110–111)
• Principles of accessio: Omne quod inaedificatur solo solo cedit; Superficies solo cedit

Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The High Court judgment was affirmed. No costs. District Court to proceed under Partition Act.

READ JUDGMENT - CLICK