W.M. Anulawathie vs W.M.T.B. Wijekoon – CA CASE NO.1296/96 F -1996

In the case between W.M.T.B. Wijekoon (Plaintiff-Respondent) and W.M. Anulawathie, K.G. Nandalatha Kumarihamy, and others (Defendant-Appellants), the Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant-appellants had acquired prescriptive title to the subject property under the Prescription Ordinance by adverse possession for over ten years. The court held that the appellants failed to prove a continuous adverse possession sufficient to establish prescriptive title, thereby upholding the District Judge’s decision in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The principle reaffirmed is that the burden of proof for prescriptive title rests firmly upon the party asserting it, with reference to legal standards such as Mithrapala v. Ikonis Singho. This decision affirms the necessity of strict compliance w