Nihal Panditharathna v. Buddhadasa Adihetti – CA 954/97-1997

In the case between Nihal Panditharathna (Plaintiff/Appellant) and Buddhadasa Adihetti (Defendant/Respondent), the court addressed whether the plaintiff was entitled to restoration of possession of land via a possessory action under Section 4 of the Prescription Ordinance. It was held that the plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of a possessory action, including proof of possession “ut dominus” and evidence of actual dispossession by the defendant. The court reaffirmed that for a possessory action, the claimant must demonstrate possession as owner and unlawful dispossession, and that mere assertion of right or continued partial use does not suffice. Relevant statutory principles and prior judicial authority guided the decision, emphasizing that possession under a valid stat