Wathukarage Sirisena et al. vs. Wathukarage alias Rantheiyalage Karolis Fernando et al. – SC APPEAL 124/11-2016

In the case between the substituted 1A Defendant Appellant and several Respondents, including parties such as Raththarana and others, the court addressed whether land description inconsistencies and title documents necessitate the exclusion of certain parcels (specifically Lots 313, 314, and 5) from the corpus to be partitioned. It was determined that evidentiary material, including deeds and historical survey plans, indicated clear discrepancies in the chain of title, particularly establishing that Lots 313 and 314 could not form part of the title conveyed under deed P 3. The court held that Lot No. 5 should be excluded from the partition, with the corpus for partition limited to Lots 1–4 per the Preliminary Plan dated 26.10.1995. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, subject to a variatio