Wimaladasa Mathangaweera vs M.K.Pantis – CA APPEAL NO.876/98-2013

In the case between Wimaladasa Mathangaweera (Plaintiff-Appellant) and M.K. Pantis (now substituted by M.K. Dhammika Suranga) (Defendant-Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the defendant established prescriptive rights over the disputed land, thereby defeating the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title and possession. It was determined that the defendant did not satisfy the prescription requirement, and the plaintiff was found entitled to 8/9 shares of the property, rather than the 23/24 share originally claimed. The principle reaffirmed is that substantive evidence must prove continuous and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period under the Prescription Ordinance, and that entitlement to a lesser share may be granted if supported by the record. The decision