Heeralu Pathirannehelage Thilakaratne vs. Wickrama Arachchige Jaconis et al. – CA 466/1999-1999

In Heeralu Pathirannehelage Thilakaratne v. Wickrama Arachchige family members, Randeni Pidum Wattage Sarnelis Randeni, and others, the court addressed whether the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title acquired prescriptive title to Lot 3 of Ambagahawatta under the Prescription Ordinance, sufficient to sustain a rei vindicatio action and displace the title asserted by the defendants. It was held that neither party established prescriptive title according to the requirements of law, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof for rei vindicatio and prescriptive acquisition rests with the party asserting it. The findings relied on the Prescription Ordinance, the Civil Procedure Code—particularly section 149—and relevant case authorities, emphasizing that mere assertions, documentary i