M.A.D. Piyasena alias P. Don Marasinghe v. Salpadoru Tholkamudalige Arthur Hemasiri Perera – 1135/99 F -2015

In the case between M.A.D. Piyasena alias P. Don Marasinghe, Sarath Marasinghe, and Kanthi Perera (Plaintiffs) and Salpadoru Tholkamudalige Arthur Hemasiri Perera (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether title to land belonged to the Plaintiffs or the Defendant, and whether procedural propriety was maintained after dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ plaint. It was held that the claim in reconvention by the Defendant was procedurally invalid, as it was not properly pleaded in accordance with Section 75(e) of the Civil Procedure Code. The principle reaffirmed was that a court cannot entertain or grant relief on a purported claim in reconvention that has not been distinctly pleaded with necessary particulars. This decision relied on statutory procedural requirements and emphasized that