Hemapala v. Abeyratne – 1978_79 volume 2 page 222

The case between Hemapala (plaintiff) and Abeyratne (defendant) addressed whether a deed (P1) had been duly proved in accordance with section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance and whether the subject land was sufficiently identified. The central findings established that challenges to the due execution of P1 and the identification of the land were not raised at trial and that the admission of the deed without specific objection precluded such arguments from being raised at the appellate stage. The decision reaffirmed the principle that legal issues pertaining to the proof of documents and identification of property must be timely raised at trial to be entertained on appeal. Reliance was placed on procedural requirements outlined in the Evidence Ordinance, emphasizing the finality of unchallenge