Reparamadu Crispilatha and another vs Koralage Tharalis and others – SC Appeal No. 124/2015-2024

The case involves a land partition action initiated by a Plaintiff. An Interlocutory Decree and a Scheme of Partition (P9 A) were issued by the District Judge. Objections to P9 A were raised by the 2nd and 4th Defendants, who proposed an alternative scheme (P9 B), which was rejected by the District Judge. The Provincial High Court of Civil Appeals refused Leave to Appeal against this decision. The Supreme Court granted Leave to Appeal on specific legal questions. The Supreme Court found that Scheme of Partition P9 A violated Section 31(2) of the Partition Law due to the creation of sub-divided lots below the minimum legal extent. Furthermore, compliance with Section 32 of the Partition Law by the Surveyor was deficient. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that P9 A was unlawful and inequi