Index of Sri Lankan Cases on Prescription Law

This index provides concise headnotes summarising each judgment included in the compilation titled 'Compilation of Sri Lankan Cases – Prescription (12 Oct 2025)'. Each entry outlines the central legal principle and relevant doctrine.

Alvar Pillai v. Karuppan (4 NLR 321)

A tenant who obtained possession under the landlord cannot refuse to surrender the premises after expiry of lease, even if claiming ownership of part of it. The tenant must first quit, then litigate.

Maduwanwala v. Ekneligoda (3 NLR 213)

A person admitted as a tenant or licensee cannot secretly change the character of his occupation into adverse possession. Possession must be open and overt.

Mrs. Sithy Marhooma v. Mrs. P. Weerasingham (68 NLR 304)

A person continuing in possession after a conditional sale is merely a licensee. The value of the subject matter for appeal purposes is that of the licence, not the property.

V. Visvalingam v. D. de S. Gajaweera (56 NLR 111)

Even if a tenant becomes the owner, he must surrender possession to his landlord before disputing title.

Ruberu and Another v. Wijesooriya (1998 1 SLR 58, CA)

A licensor may eject a licensee without seeking a declaration of title. A licensee who took possession under another cannot dispute that person’s title without first quitting.

De Soysa v. Fonseka (58 NLR 501)

When use begins under leave and licence, presumption of consent continues until clear evidence shows adverse use.

Reginald Fernando v. Pabilinahami (2005 1 SLR 31, SC)

A licensor can eject a licensee even without proving ownership; ownership proof is unnecessary if licence is established.

De Alwis v. Perera (52 NLR 433)

Under the Rent Restriction Act, a landlord need not be owner; the right to sue for rent or ejectment rests on the status of landlord.

Weerasinghe Arachchige Sarath Weerasinghe v. Weerasinghe Arachchige Sarath Weerasinghe (SC)

Ownership rights imply possession even if ejectment is not expressly sought. Courts may grant recovery as an incident of ownership.

Leisa and Another v. Simon (2002 1 SLR 148, CA)

Once title is proved, possession is presumed. Plaintiff with paper title need not prove prescription; burden lies on defendant claiming adverse possession.

Dharmasiri v. Wickrematunga (Unreported)

Issues framed on title suffice even without explicit prayer for declaration; pleadings recede once issues are accepted.

Wijesundera and Others v. Constantine Dasa (Unreported)

Where possession continued with permission of owner, no prescriptive title arises unless overt adverse act is shown.

Naguda Marikar v. Mohammadu (7 NLR 91, PC)

An agent permitted to enjoy rents cannot prescribe against the owner unless he renounces his agency and asserts ownership openly.

Navaratne v. Jayatunge (44 NLR 517)

A person in occupation with owner’s permission must perform an overt act manifesting adverse intent to claim by prescription.

Mirissage Suraweera v. Lanka Geeganage Dayawathie (CA)

Plaintiff claiming under licence must prove title or lawful permission; long possession without proof of licence may favour the occupant.

Francis Gajaman and Others v. Madihe Gajaman Leelawathi (SC)

A licensee must quit before disputing ownership. Possession with permission bars prescriptive claim.

Chandras Gunasekara v. Madduma Bandara Dodanwela (SC)

Licensee estopped from denying title of licensor. Possession under another’s title is admission of ownership.

Pattiyage Nanadasena v. Nanayakkara Atulugamage Robert Silva

Payment of ground rent does not create a tenancy; relationship governed by common law.

T. Konesamany v. A. A. Jeyaratnam (CA, Gaffoor J.)

Claim for prescription must rest on clear and unambiguous proof of hostile possession. Mere long use or rent payment insufficient.

Seyed Khan Azad Khan v. P. V. A. Piyasena (Unreported, CA)

Admissions of title under the Evidence Ordinance require no further proof; possession without lawful title is wrongful.

Ihala Lokuhewage Gnanesundara v. Nanayakkara Kudachchige Sirisena (Unreported, CA)

A licensee continues on same footing until overt act shows intention to occupy adversely.

Jayawardena Liyanage Gunadasa v. Gamekankanamge Gunawathie (Unreported, CA – H. N. J. Perera J.)

Tenant or licensee cannot deny landlord’s authority. Documentary proof of tenancy or licence outweighs bare assertions.

Pramachandra Ediriweera v. Siridasa Abraham (CA – Janak de Silva J.)

Continuous possession accompanied by overt acts may create prescription even within 10 years if counter presumption applies.

Karunawathie and Others v. Gunadasa (1996 2 SLR 406)

Long exclusive possession by co-owner with benefits excluded to others raises presumption of ouster and adverse possession.

M. M. S. Tilakasiri Menike v. W. M. Dingiri Banda (74 NLR 296)

Prescription runs against minors only during minority of the first owner; further minority of successors does not suspend it.

P. K. J. Nonis v. H. D. Peththa (73 NLR 1)

Exclusive possession under informal partition among co-owners can mature into prescriptive title.

A. M. Sheriff v. M. N. Laila (71 NLR 97)

Son living with tenant father cannot prescribe against landlord; tenant’s acknowledgment negates adverse claim.

T. Lesin v. P. S. Karunaratne (61 NLR 138)

Where donor reserves life interest, prescription against donee begins only after donor’s death.

Khan v. Jayman (1994 2 SLR 233)

Defendant who entered as licensee and failed to prove ownership is liable to ejectment; licence termination restores owner’s rights.

P. K. P. Parinigama v. Dingiri Banda (CA – Sisira de Abrew J.)

Possession with secret intention cannot constitute prescription; even co-owners must have overt acts of ouster.