D.J. Liyanapathirana Vs. Alexina Liyanapathirana – CA NO. 441/97 F -2014

In the case between D.J. Liyanapathirana (Appellant) and Alexina Liyanapathirana (Respondent) concerning a partition action, the primary legal issue focused on whether the District Judge of Matara erred by not considering key documentary evidence, specifically documents 5V1–5V4 and the main will marked as P1. The appellate review established that these documents were not present in the record nor shown to have been duly considered, impacting the adjudication of parties’ shares in the property. It was determined that the statutory duty under Section 25 of the Partition Law was not fulfilled due to this evidentiary inadequacy. The judgment set aside the previous decree and ordered a new trial, reiterating the requirement that all relevant evidence must be assessed to ensure a just and lawful