Kirihamy v. Dingirimaththaya – sllr 1996 volume 2 page 175

In the case between Kirihamy (Plaintiff) and Dingirimathtthaya (Defendant), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether actions by the Defendant amounted to “eviction” or a “threat to evict” within the meaning of the Paddy Lands Act and Agricultural Lands Law. It was held that only actual, physical deprivation of the right to use and cultivate the land constitutes eviction, while threats or interference absent dispossession do not suffice to trigger statutory remedies. The Court reinstated the District Court’s judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. This judgment reaffirmed the legal principle that eviction under the relevant statutes requires actual dispossession, relying on statutory construction and precedent, and clarified the jurisdic