Weerasinghe v. Sepala and Another – sllr 1996 volume 2 page 229

In WEERASINGHE v. SEPALA AND ANOTHER, the court examined whether the underlying dispute concerned the right to cultivate a paddy field or the right to possession of that land. It was held that the case involved the right to cultivate, not possession, requiring the application of section 69 rather than section 68 of the Primary Courts Procedure Act. The findings established that restoration of possession was not the appropriate remedy, as the parties’ claims pertained to cultivation rights. The principle reaffirmed is that disputes regarding cultivation rights are distinct from those of possession and must be resolved under the relevant statutory provision. The case clarifies the correct procedural application under the Primary Courts Procedure Act, reinforcing that cultivation rights may v