Revision is exceptional; it is not a substitute for a missed appeal. On that basis, the Supreme Court held the trial judge had properly investigated the title under s.25; the High Court was right to find no exceptional ground for revision.

 

Headnote - SC Appeal No. 98/2014 (Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, 04 Sept 2025)

 

Jayasuriya Arachchige Leelawathie & others v. Jayasinghe Arachchige Nimal Athula & others…………

S. Thurairaja, P.C., J.; Janak De Silva, J.; K. Priyantha Fernando, J…………………………………………………………..

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs; all questions of law answered in the negative.

Background at a glance

The partition action involved a corpus whose identity was undisputed. The pedigree turned on how many children Juliana had: the Appellants said six; the Respondents said four. The trial judge found four, relying chiefly on Deed No. 1337 (1957) and the share arithmetic that follows from it. The Appellants did not appeal; instead, they sought revision in the Provincial High Court, which refused for want of exceptional circumstances. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on three questions attacking the High Court’s refusal and the trial judge’s handling of title.

 

Questions of Law and the answers

 

S.25(1) Partition Law – Failure to investigate title?

Answer: No. The trial judge properly investigated title; reliance on Deed No. 1337 and resulting share computations was justified.

Is an un-allotted or substantially mis-allotted share considered a miscarriage of justice that warrants revision?

Answer: No. The asserted shortfall did not present exceptional circumstances for revision, especially where the proper remedy was appeal, which was not pursued.

Allocation of only 692/1600 to the 1st Plaintiff = serious miscarriage of justice?

Answer: No. On the record, the share is consistent with the deed-based inference that Juliana had four children.

 

The legal principles that have been clarified.

Proof of pedigree: who knew, and when did they say it?

 

Pedigree can be proved via the Evidence Ordinance: ss. 32(5), 32(6), 50(2) (hearsay of pedigree; opinions of family members).

Ante litem motam statements (made before litigation) by a person with special means of knowledge carry high probative value.

Even though a party-witness who is a family member may be presumed to know, a contemporaneous deed by a closer source (here, Juliana’s son Agostinu) can outweigh later oral testimony. (Applied with P.M. Cooray v. Wijesuriya, 62 NLR 158.)

Practical rule: If a deed executed long before the dispute coherently fixes shares, courts may treat it as the more reliable indicator of pedigree than later partisan testimony.

 

B. Share arithmetic as corroboration

Deed No. 1337 showed 3/16 accruing in a way that was consistent only if Juliana had four children, dovetailing with Deed No. 366 and earlier transfers.

 

Thus, arithmetical coherence served as internal proof of the family tree.

 

Practical rule: In partition suits, internally consistent share fractions in genuine historic deeds can decisively confirm the pedigree.

Appeal vs. Revision (High Court)

Revision is exceptional; it is not a substitute for a missed appeal.

Absent exceptional circumstances, the High Court will not reopen final trial findings on pedigree/title.

Practical rule: If you disagree with a pedigree finding, appeal on time. Don’t bank on revision unless you can demonstrate something truly exceptional.

 

Court’s reasoning (in brief, step-by-step)

The only trial witness for Appellants said Juliana had six children.

The Court compared this with Deed No. 1337, which was executed by Agostinu (Juliana’s son) in 1957, prior to the litigation and from a source with more reliable information, along with the earlier Deed No. 366.

The 3/16 figure in Deed No. 1337 works only if there were four siblings, thereby undercutting the “six-children” version.

On that basis, the Supreme Court held the trial judge had properly investigated the title under s.25; the High Court was right to observe no exceptional ground for revision.

 

Outcome.

All three questions were answered against the Appellants; the appeal was dismissed with costs. The decision reinforces that ante litem motam deed evidence from a primary family source is often decisive in pedigree disputes and that revisionary jurisdiction will not save parties from the consequences of failing to appeal.

SIMPLY CLICK ON THIS TO VIEW THE JUDGMENT