Piyadasa v. Binduva Alias Gunasekera – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 108

In the case between Piyadasa and Binduva alias Gunasekera, the court addressed the question of whether deeds (P1 and P2) transferring an undivided half share of land were duly executed amidst allegations of fraud and incapacity of the executant, Wattuwa. It was held that the deeds in question were not validly executed, as evidence established that Wattuwa did not comprehend the nature of the documents due to incapacity, thereby rendering their execution void. The principle reaffirmed maintains that formal execution of a document raises presumptive validity, but where execution is challenged on grounds of incapacity or fraud invalidating agency or consent, due execution must be affirmatively proven. Reliance was placed on authority including W. Branchy Appu v. Poidohamy, with the key takeaw