Lalith Kumara Vithana vs Sunil Vithana – CA 116/06-2015

In the case between Lalith Kumara Vithana (Plaintiff) and Sunil Vithana and others (Defendants), the court addressed whether an interlocutory decree and judgment in Partition case No. 259/P, District Court of Homagama, should be set aside due to non-service of proper statutory notices/summons to claimants whose interests were disclosed but who were not made parties. It was held that the failure to serve notice under Section 16 of the Partition Law on parties identified as claimants constituted a fundamental procedural defect, rendering the interlocutory decree void. The principle reaffirmed was that compliance with statutory notice requirements is indispensable in partition actions, as any decree entered without such service is a nullity. This decision relied on Section 16 of the Partition