Bentara Vidanage Gunasena v. Daya Shamendra Panditha et al. – CA 612/97 F -2017

In the case between Bentara Vidanage Gunasena (Plaintiff–Appellant) and Daya Shamendra Panditha and others (Defendant–Respondents), the court examined the entitlement of the Plaintiff–Appellant, as holder of a 9/10th share in partitioned land, to secure the adoption of a preferred partition scheme (Plan No. 284) with road frontage. The core legal issue focused on whether the final decree of partition from the District Court should be set aside due to alleged errors, particularly in light of the Plaintiff’s failure to appeal the scheme order within the time prescribed under Section 36A of the Partition Act. The findings established that the Plaintiff–Appellant’s appeal, targeting only the final decree and not the antecedent scheme order, was procedurally untenable. Consequently, it was held