Wirasinghe vs Abeysinghe – clr volume 1 page 029_2

In the dispute between a purchaser (plaintiff) and a vendor (defendant) regarding the right in the paraveni share of a crop, the court examined whether the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for breach of contract following a purported transfer of rights by the vendor, who allegedly lacked authority. It was determined that the plaintiff’s libel was misconceived, as it neither averred nor proved that the vendor lacked the title to the property, and thus failed to establish an actionable claim. The court clarified the distinction under Roman Dutch Law between actions of warranty and claims for damages arising from breach of contract, holding that the notice requirement had been misapplied. Previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff was set aside, reinforcing the legal principle that a va