Sirinatha v. Sirisena and Others – sllr 1998 volume 3 page 019

In the case between Sirinatha (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Sirisena, Chandra Jayasiri, and others (Defendants-Respondents), the court addressed whether a party with a contingent interest in land, arising from transfer during the pendency of a partition action, qualifies as a necessary party under the Partition Law. It was determined that a person acquiring interest subsequent to the registration of lis pendens does not possess an immediate or necessary interest justifying inclusion as a party under sections 66 and 69 of the Partition Act, No. 21 of 1977. The court set aside the trial judge’s order that permitted such an addition, affirming that rights derived during the course of partition proceedings are contingent on the final decree and do not vest an immediate legal interest. Existing pre