The Supreme Court in a land dispute case held that a person’s mere long possession and cultivation of someone else’s property has no legal validity upon claiming Prescriptive rights.
The Supreme Court held that mere occupation of a premises for a long time does not establish a true possession.
In this case (appeal), the appellant Jayasinghe Pathman of Elpitiya contested that the respondent was in unlawful and forcible occupation in the land. The respondent Korale Kandanamge Somapala has been residing in the premises as a close relative of the Appellant.
The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justice Buvaneka Aluwihare, Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya and Justice S. Thurairaja observed that respondent living in his ancestral home as a descendent of the family, with the consent of his sister for over 70 years does not make him the true owner of the property, but a ‘Permissive Possessor’.
“Occupation with the intention of holding the property as owner is considered as true possession,” Justice Dehideniya observed.
Mere occupation of another’s property is not by itself construed as “possession” in the eyes of law. For an occupation of another’s property to amount to possession in the eyes of law is occupation with the intention of holding the land as the owner. Therefore, the respondent has not satisfied Court that he in fact had adverse possession in the land in suit, the Supreme Court determined.
The Supreme Court further observed that there is a significant absence in clear and specific evidence on such acts of possession as would entitle the respondent to a decree in favour in terms of Section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance.
The District Court of Elpitiya delivered the judgement in 2004 in favour of the appellant
holding that respondent’s mere long possession and cultivation of appellant’s property has no legal validity upon claiming Prescriptive rights.
