Magilin Perera v. Abraham Perera – sllr 1986 volume 2 page 208

In the case between Magilin Perera (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Abraham Perera (21st Defendant/Respondent), the court addressed the issue of original ownership of disputed land and the validity of a prescriptive title claim. It was held that the evidence regarding the original ownership—whether the property belonged to Brampy Perera or Pavistina—was of minimal consequence because the devolution of rights to all eight children remained intact. The court determined that the respondent’s claim based solely on long-term possession was unsustainable without clear proof of adverse possession or exclusion of co-owners. The appellate court relied on the legal requirements for establishing a prescriptive title under applicable statutes, emphasizing that partition actions must recognize rightful owners