Hettigodage Somapala v. Hettigodage Subasena – CA 1188/96F-2012

The case between Hettigodage Subasena (plaintiff-respondent) and Hettigodage Somapala (2nd defendant-appellant) addressed whether a portion of land, specifically lot 76 owned by the 2nd defendant, was mistakenly included within the land (corpus) marked for partition as lot 73. It was determined that the superimposed plans and the surveyor’s evidence established the likelihood that the disputed portion of lot A in Plan 499 formed part of lot 76 and was thus erroneously included. The court directed that the answers to points of contest be amended in favor of the 2nd defendant, yet affirmed the interlocutory decree for partition, subject to these corrections. The principle reaffirmed is that proper identification and exclusion of erroneously included land in partition proceedings is essential