Pahala Gamage Dhannasena v. Pahala Gamage Ariyapala – CA PHC/144/2008-2016

In the case between Pahala Gamage Dharmasena (Appellant) and Pahala Gamage Ariyapala (Respondent), the issue concerned entitlement to possession of disputed land under Section 66(1)(b) of the Primary Court Procedure Act. The complaint alleged interference by the Respondent with the Appellant’s possession. The Magistrate Court determined that the Respondent was in possession at the relevant time, a conclusion affirmed by the High Court. The Court of Appeal noted that the Appellant’s police complaint indicated dispossession on 10.02.2007, with no evidence presented of regaining possession before the complaint was filed. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legal principle that only actual possession at the relevant time entitles a party to protection under the Act. Reliance was placed on