Pulukkutti Ralalage Karunaratne Vs. Pulukkuttiralalage Dhanapala and Others – SC APPEAL 239/2016-2016

In the case between the Plaintiff–Appellant (including the Petitioner) and multiple Defendant–Respondents (notably the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 19th Respondents among others) concerning a partition action on a named portion of land (Millagahawatte), the Supreme Court addressed whether the subject portion (“corpus”) was properly identified and could be partitioned separately from a larger eight-acre tract. The court found that previous judgments failed to adequately resolve the issues of title, pedigree, and the proper boundaries of the corpus as required by partition law. It was determined that the District Court and the Civil Appellate High Court did not fulfill their statutory obligations under section 25 of the Partition Law, necessitating a setting aside of their judgments and the orde