Edmund Dissanayake vs W.R. Anictus Thamel – CA 329/99F-2013

In the case between Edmund Dissanayake (later substituted by Sriyalatha Malini Weerakoon) as plaintiff and W.R. Anictus Thamel with W.K.D. Benedict Appuhamy as defendants, the court addressed whether a possessory action under section 4 of the Prescription Ordinance is maintainable when the plaintiff’s dispossession from land occurred by order of a Primary Court. It was held that such a remedy is not available when dispossession arises pursuant to a lawful court order, reaffirming the legal principle that possessory actions under section 4 require dispossession “otherwise than by due process of law.” This decision relied on the interpretation of section 4 of the Prescription Ordinance and relevant procedural principles, emphasizing that judicial dispossession bars relief by possessory actio