D.N. Wijetunga v. T.C. Amarasekera – CA 702/89-2016

In the case between D.N. Wijetunga (Plaintiff-Appellant) and T.C. Amarasekera (Defendant-Respondent), the court addressed whether the lower court’s reasoning and conclusions regarding specific performance, ejectment, possession, and damages were correct. It was held that the Defendant-Respondent was entitled to specific performance of the agreement to purchase property, and the Plaintiff-Appellant was not entitled to ejectment or damages, reaffirming the principle that a party who prevents performance cannot rely on failure to fulfill contractual terms for personal benefit. This decision relied on the interpretation of contractual obligations and established precedents regarding readiness and willingness to perform, emphasizing that conduct obstructing completion of contract terms preclude