Peter Chandrishan Manilal Perera vs Mahawatta Kankanamlage Sirisena – CA NO: 310/98-2013

The case between Peter Chandrishan Manilal Perera (plaintiff-respondent) and Mahawatta Kankanamlage Sirisena (defendant-appellant) addressed the validity of deed No. 141, with the central issue concerning whether the deed had been fraudulently executed. The court determined that the District Court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff-respondent to call the Notary who executed the deed as a witness resulted in prejudice to both parties. It was held that the proceedings and judgment following such refusal were to be set aside. The principle reaffirmed is that all parties must be granted the opportunity to present relevant evidence pivotal to the dispute, adhering to procedural fairness. The court relied on the consensus of both counsel regarding reinstatement of the proceedings and directed a f