Gunasena v. Kandage and Others – sllr 1997 volume 3 page 393

In the case between Gunasena (Plaintiff) and Kandage and Others (Defendants), the court addressed the issues of whether a plaint was defective for lack of a proper pedigree and whether oral evidence could be admitted to vary the terms of a duplicate deed, along with the sufficiency of the title pleaded and the evaluation of exclusive possession of a divided share of land. The holding established that, despite procedural shortcomings in the District Judge’s reasoning, no substantial prejudice had accrued to the defendants, as the pleadings and evidence—including the execution and implications of duplicate deeds—were adequate. The court reaffirmed the principle that oral evidence is admissible to explain a bona fide mistake under the Evidence Ordinance, and that procedural lapses do not auto