Ratnayake and Others Vs Kumarihamy and Others – sllr 2005 volume 1 page 303

In the case between Ratnayake and Others (Plaintiff) and Kumarihamy and Others (Defendant), the issue concerned the correct extent and identity of the land/corpus to be partitioned, specifically whether the measurement described in the plaint and deeds (8A, 1R, 16P) or the boundary as reflected by “4 Lahas” and Lot 3 was applicable. The determination required evaluation of both documentary and oral evidence, as well as the accuracy and legal significance of shifting boundary descriptions in property documents versus plans. It was held that the land to be partitioned comprised the area described as 8A, 1R, 16P, confirming that oral evidence under oath, when subject to cross-examination, may stand on par with documentary proof. The court reaffirmed the rule that the substantive identificatio