Nonis vs. Resiya – SC APPEAL NO. 194/2012-2012

In the case between the Plaintiff-Respondent (claiming heirs to the land known as Dhangahawathukabella and possibly Kadolgahawatta) and the Defendant-Appellant, the Supreme Court addressed whether prescriptive title had been acquired by the Plaintiff-Respondent under Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance. It was held that continuous, undisturbed, and adverse possession for 23 years had been established by the Plaintiff-Respondent, meeting the statutory requirements for prescriptive title. The court reaffirmed the rule that possession to be adverse must be overt and inconsistent with the right of the true owner, with mere possession on the basis of a secret intention being insufficient. Reliance was placed on longstanding precedents including Fernando Vs Wijesooriya and others, and the Pr