Thuppahige Kamal Chandraratne v. Abeysekara Liyanapatbendige Dayanthi et al – CA PHC 56/2016-2022

In the case between Thuppahige Kamal Chandraratne and Abeysekara Liyanapatbendige Dayanthi (including substituted party Juan Hennedige Ariyasena), the court addressed whether the Provincial High Court of Hambantota erred in affirming the Primary Court’s Order on the right to collect coconut produce from disputed land. It was held that the dispute centered on entitlement to produce under Section 69 of the Primary Courts’ Procedure Act, rather than possession or dispossession under Section 68. The holding reaffirmed the principle that appellate review, in the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction, is restricted to questions of legality and not factual reassessment. Reliance was placed on statutory interpretation and established precedent, emphasizing that where no dispossession is alleged and