N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera vs M.T. Theobald Perera – SC APPEAL NO.116/2020-2022

In the case between N. Dinesha Marita Amarasekera (Plaintiff) and M.T. Theobald Perera (Deceased) with his successors (Defendants), the court addressed the issue of whether the Defendants’ possession of certain land parcels (lots D3 and E) amounted to adverse possession as per Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance. It was held that permissive possession—especially among family members—requires clear, overt acts to become adverse, and the evidence failed to demonstrate that the Defendants’ long possession was adverse to the Plaintiff’s rights. The principle reaffirmed is that permissive or consensual occupation within a familial context does not ripen into adverse possession absent unequivocal acts of hostility or clear repudiation of the original permission. The decision was grounded on