Horagalage Sopinona vs Pitipana Arachchige Cornelis et al. – SC APPEAL NO. 49/2003-2010

In the case between Horagalage Sopinona (Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant) and Pitipana Arachchige Cornelis (Defendant-Appellant-Respondent) and others, the Supreme Court addressed whether special leave to appeal should be answered in the negative on three questions of law, and whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment—setting aside the District Court’s decision due to insufficient investigation of evidence and devolution of title—should be disturbed. It was held that the three legal questions warranted a negative response and the necessity of a thorough and comprehensive investigation in partition matters was reaffirmed. Citing Section 187 of the Civil Procedure Code and established precedents, the decision emphasized that the District Court’s judgment, which dealt with only a single issue des