Ranchagoda v. Viola – sllr 1999 volume 2 page 001

In the case between Ranchagoda (Plaintiff) and Viola (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of prescriptive title to lots 1 and 2 based on the nature and duration of cultivation. It was established that the District Court erred in finding that the plaintiff’s father held status only as a tenant cultivator, when evidence indicated he cultivated the subject lands (with cinnamon and vegetables) over a period of forty years in his own right. The Supreme Court affirmed the identification of this misdirection and upheld the decision to remit the matter for a fresh trial. The principle reaffirmed is that appellate intervention is warranted when a lower court misapprehends primary facts that materially affect the outcome. Reliance was placed on established precedent concerning appellate review