S.A. Ariyadasa vs S. A. Dhanapala – CA 161/1997-2011

The case between S. A. Dhanapala (Plaintiff-Respondent) and S. A. Ariyadasa (2nd Defendant-Appellant) concerned the question of whether the 2nd Defendant-Appellant had acquired prescriptive title to an entire parcel of family land known as ‘Lindagawadeniya’ to the exclusion of co-heirs of the original owner, Jamis. The appellate court reviewed whether the plaint satisfied the Partition Act’s requirements, the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s title evidence, and whether exclusive adverse possession was established. It was held that the evidence supported the finding of co-ownership, not ouster, and that long possession by a co-owner did not, absent clear evidence of ouster, amount to prescriptive title. The District Judge’s allocation of undivided half-share to the 2nd Defendant-Appellant and