Supreme Court Ruling on Land Ownership and Prescriptive Rights

Case Summary: SC Appeal 194/2014

Parties:

• Appellants (Defendant-Respondent-Appellants):

  1. Letchumy Suntharanathan
  2. Suntharanathan Premini

• Respondent (Substituted Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent):

  • Janaththany Logitharajah (representing deceased original plaintiff Sellathangam Logitharajah)

Facts:

The plaintiff filed a case in the District Court of Batticaloa on 10.10.1997 seeking:

1. Declaration of title to certain portions of land.
2. Ejectment of the defendants.
3. Compensation for damages.

The 1st defendant claimed she had prescribed ownership of the land and had transferred it to her daughter, the 2nd defendant. The District Court ruled in favor of the defendants, accepting their claim of prescriptive possession.

However, the plaintiff argued that the 1st defendant’s husband occupied the land with the permission (leave and license) of the original owners, making prescriptive possession invalid. The District Court found no credible evidence supporting this claim and ruled that the defendants had acquired ownership through prescription.

The plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Civil Appeal, which overturned the District Court’s decision and ordered the defendants’ ejectment, though it did not declare the plaintiff’s title to the land. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Did the High Court err in granting ejectment without declaring title?
2. Did the High Court err in ruling that the 1st defendant’s husband occupied the land under leave and license?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that:

• The High Court erred in ordering ejectment without addressing ownership.
• The plaintiff failed to prove that the 1st defendant’s husband occupied the land with leave and license.
• The defendants had been in uninterrupted possession of the land for over 10 years without acknowledgment of any superior ownership, fulfilling the legal requirements for prescriptive possession.

The Supreme Court reinstated the District Court’s judgment in favor of the defendants and allowed the appeal with costs.

Conclusion:

The case reaffirms the principle that a claim of leave and license must be substantiated with evidence. In the absence of such proof, long-term possession without acknowledgment of ownership can establish prescriptive title. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, setting aside the High Court’s decision.