Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Landowners in Rainwater Dispute: Orders Removal of Illegal Obstruction

Case Summary: W. Arthur Deepal Peiris & Others v. Ranil Perera & Others (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 (Vajira Builders)
  • “Seek Saloon”

Facts:

• The 1st plaintiff became the owner of Lot 4 through a partition decree and later gifted it to his son (3rd plaintiff) while retaining life interest for himself and his wife (2nd plaintiff).
• Lot 4 was naturally draining rainwater through Lots 2 and 3 into the municipal drain at Vidyala Mawatha.
• The defendant, who owned Lots 2 and 3, constructed a four-storied building on Lot 3, redirecting rainwater flow solely through Lot 2.
• On 13.11.2002, the defendant built a wall blocking the natural water flow, causing severe flooding on Lot 4, making toilets unusable.
• The plaintiffs filed an action in the District Court of Mount Lavinia on 14.11.2002, seeking a declaration of their right to discharge rainwater and the removal of the obstruction.

Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs had a legal right to discharge rainwater through the defendant’s land (Lot 2).
2. Whether the servitude right was extinguished by the partition decree.
3. Whether the plaintiffs could claim a servitude right by prescription.
4. Whether the courts below erred in their judgments.

Judgment:

• The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action, ruling that servitudes were extinguished by the partition decree and that they failed to prove ten years of continuous usage.
• The High Court of Civil Appeal upheld the District Court’s ruling, reasoning that Lot 5 was not a party to the action and that water could not flow from Lot 4 to Lot 2 without passing through Lot 5.
• The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that:
  • The plaintiffs had acquired the servitude by prescription.
  • The defendant had unlawfully blocked the natural flow of rainwater.
  • The lower courts misinterpreted the facts and legal principles.
  • The plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs sought.
  • The defendant was ordered to remove the obstruction and pay costs of all three courts.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing their right to discharge rainwater through Lot 2 and ordering the removal of the obstruction. The Court also emphasized that lower-lying lands have a natural servitude to receive rainwater from higher lands and that the plaintiffs had acquired this right through uninterrupted use.