Ariyasena and Another vs. Alen – sllr 2014 volume 1 page 044

In Ariyasena and Another (plaintiff) vs. Alen (defendant), the court addressed whether the omission by the trial judge to particularize the undivided interests of the parties in the interlocutory decree contravened the Partition Act, specifically Sections 25, 26, and 28. It was held that such failure amounted to a fatal irregularity, as partition judgments must clearly define the shares of all parties, consistent with precedent such as Memanis vs. Eide. The decision underscored that compliance with statutory requirements is imperative in partition proceedings, leading to the setting aside of the original judgment and remanding for a new trial.

Abdus Salam J. — It was determined that the interlocutory decree was inconsistent with the Partition Act due to the trial judge’s omission to deta