Vithanage Romanis Elowita Horana v. Mahawattage Don Sirisena Udawatta Horana – CA NO.306/98-2014

In the case between Mahawattage Don Sirisena (Plaintiff-Respondent), substituted by Mahawattage Don Mitrasena and others, and Vithanage Romanis (Defendant-Appellant), substituted by Vithanage Thilakapala and others, the court addressed whether the Defendant-Appellants were entitled to Lot 7 of Preliminary Plan No. 871 on the basis of prescription under the Prescription Ordinance. It was held that the appellants failed to establish a clear, exclusive, and unambiguous identity of Lot 7 and did not meet the burden required by Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance for acquiring prescriptive title. This decision reinforced that prescriptive claims must demonstrate both distinct possession and certainty of boundaries, and clarified that improvements or plantations alone do not suffice to prove