Mirissage Suraweera Vs Lanka Geeganage Dayawathie – CA 1309/2000-2018

The case between Mirissage Suraweera (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Lanka Geeganage Dayawathie (Defendant-Respondent) addressed whether the Defendant was a mere licensee who became a trespasser upon revocation of the alleged license, and if the Defendant acquired prescriptive title through long-term possession. It was determined that the Plaintiff did not establish either the grant and termination of a license or sufficiently prove title to the property, and that the Defendant demonstrated continuous occupation since 1956. The principle reaffirmed was that appellate courts will not disturb findings of fact absent manifest error, and the burden of proof on title and licensee relationship rests with the party asserting them. The decision relied on established precedents regarding appellate review