Roslin Nona et al. vs D.M. Sudumanika et al. – CA 1162/99 F -2013

In the case between Roslin Nona, B. Manamperi, and others (Plaintiffs) and D.M. Sudumanika and T.M. Dawithsingho (Defendants), the court addressed the issue of entitlement to a declaration of title to land, the sufficiency of adverse possession for prescription, and rights to ejectment and damages. It was held that the plaintiffs’ title was established and that defendants’ claim to prescriptive title failed, as their occupation was permissive and not overtly adverse, especially given the family relationship and the existence of written acknowledgment (P4) by the 1st defendant. The principle reaffirmed was that permissive possession cannot ripen into adverse possession absent clear evidence of manifest denial of the true owner’s title, particularly in family circumstances, referencing estab