Hapanpedi Gedara Samarasinghe vs. Tikkadurayale Alias Horathalpedigedara Laisa and others – CA 431/2000-2021

In the case between Hapanpedi Gedara Samarasinghe (Plaintiff) and Tikkadurayale Alias Horathalpedigedara Laisa and others including Sinhalapedigedara Amalawathie (5th Defendant – Appellant), the court addressed the issue of the identification of the correct land (“corpus”) to be partitioned. It was held that the land surveyed and described as “Tikittadeniyahena” corresponds to the land described in the Plaint, and not “Gonnagahamula hena” as asserted by the 5th Defendant. The principle reaffirmed is that physical boundaries and continuous possession supersede minor discrepancies in land extent and marginal differences between descriptions and plan, particularly when the survey and credible possession evidence are aligned. Reliance was placed on the evidence of boundaries, historical descri