Gunawardena v. Ran Menike and Others – sllr 2002 volume 3 page 243

In the case between Gunawardena (plaintiff-appellant) and Ran Menike and others (defendant-respondents), the court addressed the validity of a partition action settlement under sections 91 and 408 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that the purported compromise did not fulfill the statutory requirements due to lack of participation by all parties and insufficient clarity of terms, thereby necessitating strict compliance to legal standards in partition settlements. The principle was reaffirmed that compromise judgments in partition actions must involve all parties with rights in the property and clear, unambiguous terms before precluding further appeal. The decision drew on judicial precedents including People’s Bank v. Gilbert Weerasinghe and Kumarihamy v. Weragama, underscoring that