Nurun Anberiya Hanifa vs Mahapatunage Thilak Perera and Muttettuwage Violet Perera – SC APPEAL NO. 51/2011-2011

In the case between Nurun Anberiya Hanifa and Mahapatunage Thilak Perera (together with related parties in S.C. Appeal Nos. 51/2011 and 52/2011), the court addressed the issue of whether the Defendant-Appellant-Petitioners had legally established a claim of prescription (adverse possession) over disputed parcels of land. The court held that the appellants had not proved continuous and exclusive possession necessary for prescription, and therefore their claim was rejected. This reaffirmed the principle that a claim of prescription requires clear, credible evidence of uninterrupted adverse possession for the requisite statutory period. The decision relied on analysis of deeds, declarations, rates payments, and witness evidence, emphasizing that mere assertions or inconsistent documentation a