Bopitiya Karalliyadda Marasinghe Mudiyanselage Podimenike vs T.M.P.Peiris – CA 1419/03-2011

In the case between Arumugam Sinnakutty Kandawanam (Plaintiff-Respondent) and Bopitiya Karalliyadda Marasinghe Mudiyanselage Podimenike (10th Defendant-Appellant, later substituted by 10A Defendant), the court addressed whether the 10th Defendant was entitled to a share in the property by prescription despite originally entering into possession as a tenant. It was determined that a claimant who entered as a tenant must clearly establish an adverse overt act when seeking to claim prescription. The appellate court affirmed the District Court’s holding that such an overt act was not established and rejected the 10A Defendant’s claim. The principles relied upon emphasized that mere long possession as a tenant does not amount to adverse possession for purposes of prescription under applicable p