Charles Perera and Another V Kotigala – sllr 2004 volume 2 page 067

In the matter of CHARLES PERERA AND ANOTHER v. KOTIGALA, the court examined the validity of a title claimed by the plaintiff-respondent via Deed No. 979/3.7.85 (P5), the defense of prescriptive possession by the defendants-appellants, the legal effect of a life interest, and the procedural integrity involving a partition deed (P3) and alleged non-joinder of necessary parties. The court determined that the plaintiff-respondent’s title was duly established on the balance of probabilities, with documentary and oral evidence sufficiently addressing all material contentions, including those regarding execution of deeds and alleged delays. It was reaffirmed that possession and title go together when lawfully supported, and failure to join a life interest holder did not vitiate proceedings. This