Thotage Ariyasena Vs. Maddumadevage Alen and others – CA APPEAL NO. 1104/96 F -2014

In the case between Maddumadevage Alen (Plaintiff-Respondent) and Thotage Ariyasena, Pritman Dias Gunawardana, and others (Defendant-Appellants), the court addressed whether a District Judge’s judgment and interlocutory decree in a partition action, which failed to specify the exact undivided shares allotted to each party and instead relied on the plaintiff submitting a schedule of shares, satisfied the requirements of the Partition Law. It was held that such a procedure contravened the Partition Law, reaffirming the principle that the trial judge is required to determine and state the interest of each party in the judgment itself. Reliance was placed on relevant statutory provisions, including Section 25 of the Partition Law, and established case law such as Memanis v Eide. The decision h