Karunamuni Karunasiri de Silva v. Philomina Wimala de Zoysa et al. – CA APPEAL NO.723/99 F -2016

In the case between Philomina Wimala de Zoysa and Karunamuni Karunasiri de Silva, the court addressed the timeliness of an appeal in a partition action, the sufficiency of identification of the land (corpus) under dispute, and the adequacy of a prescriptive title claim. It was held that the appeal had been filed within the prescribed period under Section 755(3) of the Civil Procedure Code due to non-working days, and that the identification of the corpus by the District Judge relied properly on the pleadings, the surveyor’s plan, and trial admissions. The claim of prescriptive title was rejected on the ground that uninterrupted, adverse possession was not sufficiently proven. The principle was reaffirmed that computation of statutory periods must exclude non-working days, and that mere occ