Colombo, 02 October 2026 – In a significant ruling clarifying the rights of co-owners in land disputes, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today delivered a judgment in the case of K. M. A. Wimarshana Seneviratne and Others v. B. M. S. Chandani Bandaranayake and Others, setting aside a Provincial High Court decision and affirming the original District Court verdict. The decision, delivered by Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J., with the concurrence of A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J. and Menaka Wijesundera J., provides crucial insights into the enforcement of proprietary rights, particularly concerning rights of way.
Background of the Protracted Legal Battle
The dispute originated from a Plaint filed in the District Court of Kandy on 12 December 1995 by the Plaintiffs (now Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants), seeking a declaration of common ownership over a specified property and, crucially, a declaration that the Defendants (now 1B and 4A Defendant-Appellant-Respondent) had no right or entitlement to use a road over the said property. The Plaintiffs argued that the roadway was private and that the Defendants had unlawfully constructed a new path over their property around 29 November 1995.
The Defendants countered these claims in their Answer dated 28 January 1997, asserting a prescriptive right of way over an eight-foot-wide roadway, claiming continuous use by themselves and their predecessors for over 30 years.
District Court’s Initial Findings
The District Court, after careful consideration of the evidence, ruled in favour of the original 1st to 6th Plaintiffs, granting the relief they sought, and dismissed the Defendants’ claim in reconvention. However, the claims of the 7th to 13th Plaintiffs were rejected due to their failure to establish the relevant devolved rights.
High Court Reversal and Appeal to the Supreme Court
Dissatisfied with the District Court’s judgment, the Defendants appealed to the Provincial High Court of the Central Province holden in Kandy. The High Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the entire Plaintiff’s action. Its central reasoning was that since the Plaintiffs had instituted the action jointly, they were required to establish ownership of the entirety of the land in suit to obtain relief.
The Plaintiffs subsequently invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which granted Leave to Appeal on two pivotal Questions of Law:
- Did the learned High Court Judges err in law holding that the Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioners must establish that they are sole owners of the entire land as described in the schedule to the Plaint to obtain relief as prayed for in prayer “b” to the Plaint?
- Can a co-owner prevent a 3rd party from using a right of way without establishing the full title to the entire land?
Supreme Court’s Decisive Rationale
Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna J., delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the pleadings, evidence, and judgments of the lower courts. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court’s approach was fundamentally flawed. The Court emphasized the distinction between the Plaintiffs’ prayers: prayer (a) sought a declaration of common ownership, while prayer (b) sought to restrain the Defendants’ use of the road (an actio negatoria).
The judgment underscored that in an actio negatoria, the essential question is whether the person seeking relief possesses the requisite proprietary or soil rights, not necessarily exclusive ownership of the entire property. Referencing established legal precedents such as Saparamadu v Melder [2004] 3 Sri L.R. 148, the Court affirmed that a co-owner holds the right to assert and protect their proprietary interest against any third party unlawfully interfering with the property. This principle was further supported by decisions like Hevawitarane et al v Dangan Rubber Co. Ltd. [1913] 17 NLR 49, Harriette v Pathmasiri [1996] 1 Sri L.R. 358, and M.M.M. Ashar v T.H. Kareem (SC Appeal No. 171/2019, SC Minutes of 22 May 2023).
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s proposition that “all Plaintiffs should succeed this case jointly or otherwise fail,” asserting that such an approach ignores the potential for varying degrees of established proprietary interests among co-plaintiffs. The District Court’s differentiation between Plaintiffs 1-6, who successfully established co-ownership, and Plaintiffs 7-13, who did not, was deemed correct and within its jurisdiction.
Findings on the Disputed Roadway and Prescriptive Rights
Regarding the physical dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s findings that the roadway in question (depicted as B–C in Plan No. 1549) had been newly constructed in or around 1995. The District Court’s assessment of evidence, including fresh cutting marks and soil, was upheld. Crucially, the Supreme Court agreed that the Defendants had failed to establish the adverse and uninterrupted possession necessary to acquire a prescriptive right of way for the requisite period. The presence of an alternative Gamsabha road for the Defendants also weakened their claim.
Conclusion: Victory for Co-Ownership Rights
In conclusion, the Supreme Court answered the Questions of Law in the affirmative. The judgment stated that the High Court erred in its interpretation of co-ownership rights and the requirements for an actio negatoria. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 20 April 2015, specifically granting relief in favour of Plaintiffs 1-6 and dismissing the claims of Plaintiffs 7-13.
The Court made no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case, bringing to a close a legal battle that spanned over three decades.
Source: Read original document