Wickrama Arachchilage Shriyakanthi and Hewa Malavige David vs E.R. Podi Nileme – SC APPEAL NO. 22/2013-2014

In the case between Wickrama Arachchilage Shriyakanthi and Hewa Malavige David (Respondents/Plaintiffs) and E.R. Podi Nileme (Defendant/Appellant), the court addressed the issue of whether a defendant in a possessory action must prove title or may rely on dispossession evidence under the Prescription Ordinance. The court held that proof of title is not necessary in possessory actions and focused on determining the actual area lawfully possessed, reaffirming the principle that possession, rather than title, is determinative in such proceedings. This decision relied on Section 4 of the Prescription Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 and precedents such as Arunachalam v. Mohamedu and Jayaratna v. Jayaratna, emphasizing that rights must be established as of the date of the plaint, and that a later-issue