Karunadasa vs. Subasinghe – sllr 2014 volume 1 page 271

In the dispute between Karunadasa (plaintiff/respondent) and Subasinghe (defendant/appellant), the court examined the legal framework governing servitudes and rights of way, specifically addressing whether a party lacking soil rights could enforce such rights or restrict others’ use. It was held that a clear distinction exists between “actio confessoria” (enforcement of a servitude without soil rights) and “actio negataria/contraria” (declaration of property as free from servitude, which presumes soil rights). The findings emphasized that a party not possessing soil rights may maintain an action to secure his own servitude but cannot obtain relief that presupposes exclusive soil ownership. The decision drew on established legal classifications of servitude actions, reiterating that questio