Kularatne v. Samarawickrema and Another – sllr 2003 volume 2 page 152

The case between Kularatne (plaintiff) and Samarawickrema and Another (defendant), the court addressed the issue of a vendor’s obligation to warrant and defend title in the context of a dispute over land ownership and whether such obligation mandates notice through the court or permits direct notification to the vendor. It was held that direct notice to the vendor is sufficient for the performance of the covenant to defend title, eliminating the necessity for court-channeled notification. The principle reaffirmed that, upon receipt of notice, the vendor’s intervention as a party is essential to facilitate an effective defense and to avoid multiplicity of actions. The decision relied on legal precedents including Weerawardhana v Ratnaike and Silva v Daniel Ram, emphasizing that the refusal