Supreme Court Affirms Landowners’ Right to Natural Water Flow in Property Dispute

Case Summary: SC/APPEAL/37/2014

Parties

• Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants:

  1. W. Arthur Deepal Peiris
  2. W. Sunethra Peiris
  3. W. Ashoka Ajith Peiris

• Defendant-Respondent-Respondent:

  • Ranil Perera (representing “Vajira Builders” and “Seek Saloon”)

Facts of the Case

• The 1st plaintiff became the owner of Lot 4 through a partition decree and later gifted it to his son (3rd plaintiff), subject to a life interest for himself and his wife (2nd plaintiff).
• Lot 4 is at a lower elevation than Galle Road, causing rainwater to flow naturally through Lots 2 and 3 into a municipal drain on Vidyala Mawatha.
• The defendant, who owned Lots 2 and 3, built a four-storied building on Lot 3 and a wall on Lot 2, blocking the natural drainage of rainwater from Lot 4.
• This obstruction caused flooding in Lot 4, making the toilets unusable.
• The plaintiffs filed an action in the District Court of Mount Lavinia on 14.11.2002, seeking:
  1. A declaration of their right to discharge rainwater through Lot 2.
  2. An order directing the defendant to remove the wall obstructing the water flow.

Issue

• Whether the plaintiffs have a legal right (servitude) to discharge rainwater through the defendant’s land.
• Whether the defendant’s actions violated the plaintiffs’ rights.

Judgment

• The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action, stating that:

  • The partition decree had extinguished all servitudes.
  • The plaintiffs had failed to prove uninterrupted use for 10 years to claim a prescriptive right.

• The High Court of Civil Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision, adding that:

  • The plaintiffs failed to include the owner of Lot 5 as a party, which allegedly affected the drainage issue.

• The Supreme Court Overturned Both Judgments, ruling that:

  • The High Court’s finding about Lot 5 was factually incorrect.
  • The plaintiffs had established a prescriptive right over Lot 2.
  • The defendant had unlawfully blocked the natural water flow, violating the principle of ius fluminis (the natural servitude of lower land receiving water from higher land).
  • The defendant must remove the obstruction and pay costs for all three courts.

Conclusion

• The plaintiffs were entitled to discharge rainwater through Lot 2.
• The defendant’s construction was illegal, and he was ordered to remove the obstruction.
• The Supreme Court recognized the importance of balancing urban development with natural drainage rights.
• The plaintiffs won the case, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.