Piyasena Perera v. Margret Perera and Two Others – sllr 1984 volume 1 page 057

In the case between Piyasena Perera (Plaintiff) and Margret Perera and two others (Defendants), the issue concerned whether an interlocutory decree of partition, final by section 48(1) of the Partition Law No. 21 of 1977, could be revised or set aside through restitutio‑in‑integrum due to a miscarriage of justice, particularly where the identification of the land (corpus) was disputed because of discrepancies in boundaries shown in plans and the plaint. The findings established that the finality conferred on such decrees does not preclude judicial intervention where a miscarriage of justice occurs, especially if the land to be partitioned is not sufficiently identified and parties lack notice. Reliance was placed on statutory interpretation of partition law and supporting precedents, empha