Shaul Hameed Mohamed Ruwais v. Mohamed Mohamed Thamby – CA PHC 141/2013-2013

In the case between Shaul Hameed Mohamed Ruwais (Petitioner-Appellant) and Mohamed Mohamed Thamby (2nd Respondent), the court addressed the issue of determining actual possession of the disputed premises at No. 18 Main Road, Puttlam, as relevant under Section 66(1)(a) of the Primary Court Procedure Act No. 44 of 1979. It was held that the Petitioner-Appellant was in actual possession at the critical time, and that both the Magistrate’s Court and High Court had incorrectly analyzed the facts and legal principles regarding possession. The principle reaffirmed was that clear evidence of possession at the material time must guide determinations under Section 66, and that revisionary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is justified where lower court orders are ex-facie incorrect. Reliance was p