Karolis vs Amaradasa and Others – sllr 2008 volume 2 page 325

In the case between Karolis (and successors in title) and Amaradasa and others, the court addressed the issue of whether a right of way or servitude (footpath) existed over an unallotted path, by prescription or grant, in the context of a previously issued partition decree. It was determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to a general right of way across the disputed lot but only to a limited 3-feet wide footpath as specified in the partition decree (Case No. 2444). The decision reaffirmed the principle that clear and cogent proof is required to establish rights of way or servitude beyond what is expressly granted by a partition decree or acquired by prescription or grant. The ruling relied on statutory standards governing servitude and prescription, emphasizing that assertions withou