Land Ownership and Legal Battles: Supreme Court Resolves Decade-Long Property Dispute

SC/APPEAL/166/2019

Introduction

A long-standing property dispute between family members reached its final resolution in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in the case of Sabeera Salee v. Hasan Mohamed Samsun Nisa. This case highlights critical legal principles surrounding ownership rights, prescriptive possession, and procedural fairness in appellate courts. The Supreme Court ultimately reinstated the District Court’s judgment, affirming the plaintiff’s legal title and dismissing the defendant’s claim based on prescriptive ownership.

Background of the Case

The case involved a dispute over land ownership between two sisters. The plaintiff, Sabeera Salee, initiated legal proceedings in the District Court of Colombo, seeking a declaration of title and ejectment of the defendant, Hasan Mohamed Samsun Nisa, from the property.

According to the plaintiff, she acquired ownership through a valid chain of title, with legal transfers originating from their predecessor, Mohammed Mohideen Mohammed Ismail. The defendant, however, refused to vacate the property and contested the plaintiff’s ownership by claiming prescriptive title based on the long-term occupation of their uncle, Fuard Thuan Yehiya.

The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the Provincial High Court overturned the decision on appeal, concluding that the plaintiff had not lawfully acquired ownership. This prompted the plaintiff to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Raised

The case revolved around three key legal questions:

1. Did the plaintiff successfully establish legal ownership of the disputed property?
2. Did the defendant prove uninterrupted, exclusive, and adverse possession sufficient to acquire prescriptive title?
3. Did the High Court err in applying Section 545 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to require administration of the estate before ownership could be transferred?

Arguments by the Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• The plaintiff presented clear documentation proving ownership, including deeds of transfer and declarations.
• The defendant’s claim of prescriptive title lacked evidence of uninterrupted and undisturbed possession.
• The High Court erred by considering a legal issue (Section 545 CPC) that was never raised at the trial level.

Defendant’s Arguments

• The plaintiff’s ownership was defective because the property should have been administered as part of the estate of Mohammed Ismail under Section 545 of the Civil Procedure Code.
• The defendant’s uncle, Yehiya, had acquired ownership through prescriptive possession, and he later gifted the property to the defendant.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, setting aside the High Court’s decision and reinstating the District Court’s 2009 ruling. The key findings were:

1. The plaintiff successfully established legal ownership through a clear and undisputed chain of title.
2. The defendant failed to prove prescriptive ownership as there was no evidence to show that her occupation was adverse, continuous, and exclusive for the required period.
3. The High Court had erred in law by addressing Section 545 CPC, as the issue was not raised during the trial or properly supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the principle that once legal ownership is established, the burden shifts to the opposing party to prove adverse possession with clear and convincing evidence.

Key Legal Takeaways

• Title-Based Ownership Prevails: A properly documented chain of title outweighs mere possession claims unless adverse possession is explicitly proven.
• Limits on Appellate Courts: Higher courts cannot introduce new legal issues that were not raised and argued at trial.
• Burden of Proof in Prescription Claims: A party claiming prescriptive title must conclusively demonstrate uninterrupted, exclusive, and adverse possession for the legally required period.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness, legal ownership rights, and the strict requirements for prescriptive title claims. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforced the fundamental principle that clear title is paramount unless legally challenged with substantial proof. By setting aside the High Court’s flawed ruling, the Supreme Court ensured that justice was served based on established legal principles rather than procedural technicalities.