Pathmasiri And Another v. Baby And Another – sllr 2006 volume 1 page 035

In the case between the plaintiff/respondent (seeking partition of “Badaheladeniya Hena”) and the 2nd and 3rd defendant/appellants, the court addressed whether possession of certain portions of co-owned property established prescriptive rights through adverse possession, and whether the disputed lots constituted a separate land. It was held that prolonged possession for convenience did not amount to adverse possession to oust the rights of co-owners, and there was insufficient evidence to treat the disputed lots as a separate land. The legal principle reaffirmed is that, under applicable statutes and case law, mere long-term possession by co-owners does not confer prescriptive title absent clear evidence of exclusion or ouster. The judgment emphasized that prescriptive claims cannot be est