Ranasinghe Arachchige Sarath Perera vs Ambuldeniyage Don Edwin – SC APPEAL 101/2013-2025

The court addressed the issue of whether prescriptive title to the disputed land had been established through uninterrupted and adverse possession, particularly considering possession by a predecessor. It was held that the Appellant had satisfied the evidentiary burden required under Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance of 1871 by demonstrating uninterrupted possession through both documentary and oral evidence, including prior possession by E.R. Gunawathie. The principle reaffirmed was that possession by a predecessor, supported by relevant evidence, is sufficient to establish title adverse to the original owner in prescriptive claims. This decision emphasized the interpretation of uninterrupted adverse possession and clarified the evidentiary standard necessary under the Prescription