Vithanage Asoka Malini v. Ranasena Vithana et al. – CA 970/97 F -2017

In the case between Vithanage Asoka Malini (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Ranasena Vithana, Warusavithana Gunasekera Nandawathie, Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage Sudumenika, Petta Yaddehige Asanka Manoj, Petta Yaddehige Rasika Sameera, and Petta Yaddehige Primali Dilrukshi (Defendants-Respondents), the court addressed whether the land identified in plan No. 345 as either ‘Welabodawatta’ or ‘Dangahaowita’ is the same property as described in the plaint and whether the plaintiff established the identity and title of the land in question. It was held that the plaintiff failed to prove identity and title to the land sought to be partitioned, and the land in the plaint was not sufficiently connected to the land in the plan or deeds produced. The court reaffirmed the principle that the party seeking partit