145-NLR-NLR-V-47-CHANDRANAYAKA-HAMINE-et-al-Appellants-and-GUNASEKERE-et-al-Respondents.pdf
418
WIJEYEWAR-DENE J.—Chandranayaka Hamine v. Gunasekere.
1946Present: Wijeyewardene J.
CHANDRANAYAKA HAMINE et al., Appellants, andGUNASEKERE et al., Respondents.
122—C. R. Oampaha, 2,946.
Jurisdiction—Action for declaration of boundaries—Jurisdiction of Court ofRequests.
Where, in an action instituted in the Court of Requests for declarationof boundaries, the plaintiff established his claim to have the boundaryof his land defined—
Held, that the test of jurisdiction was not the value of the land theboundary of which was sought to be defined.
A
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Gampaha.
L. A. Rajapakse, K.C. (with him H. W. Jayewardene), for the plaintiffs,appellants.
No appearance for the defendants, respondents.
Cur. adv. mill.
September 19, 1946. Wijeyewaedene J.—
This is an action for declaration of boundaries.
Two persons, Don Brumpy and Peter Gunasekere, were the owners ofundivided § and ^ share respectively of a land called Nugelandewattaof the extent of nearly 23J acres. By a deed of partition executed in.1904, these persons became entitled to a defined northern lot and a definedsouthern lot in lieu of the undivided shares. The plaintiffs are theheirs of Don Brumpy and the defendants, the heirs of Peter Gunasekere.
The plaintiffs filed this action for the definition of the boundarybetween the two divided portions as shown in plan 676 of 1936.
The first defendant filed an answer pleading that he had been inadverse possession for fifteen years of a portion of nearly 5 acres formingpart of the northern lot originally allotted to Don Brumpy by the deed
Chellidh v. Saiva Paripdlam.
419
of partition and that he had acquired a prescriptive title to it. Hepleaded farther that the Court had no jurisdiction as he valued thecause of action over Rs. 300. The other defendants did not file anyanswer.
Several issues were framed at the trial one of which referred to thejurisdiction of the Court.
The plaintiff gave evidence stating, inter alia, that he leased by P 3 of1937 for five years to the first defendant the entire northern lot allottedto Brumpy. As the first defendant failed to quit the premises on theexpiry of the lease, he filed a case in the Court of Requests of Gampahaand obtained the decree P 1 of 1942 against the first defendant. Thatdecree was affirmed in appeal. That decree declares the plaintiff entitledto recover the possession of the entire northern lot including the portionclaimed by the first defendant in this case by adverse possession. Theplaintiff explained further that it was during the subsistence of thatlease that the boundary in question became obliterated as the firstdefendant was in possession of the northern lot as lessee and of thesouthern lot as an heir of Peter Gunasekere. The plaintiff admitted thatthe value of an acre of the land was about Rs. 1,000 but valued his actionRs. 100.
The defendant led no evidence but contended “ that the test ofjurisdiction on an action of this sort would be the value of the land,the boundary of which is sought to be defined The Commissioner ofRequests held against the plaintiff on this question of jurisdiction anddismissed his action with costs.
The Commissioner of Requests is clearly wrong.
I set aside the decree. On the evidence led in the case the plaintiffhas established his claim to have the boundary defined. I remit theproceedings to the lower Court for the Commissioner of Requests totake the necessary steps to have the boundary defined.
The appellant will be entitled to costs here and costs in the lowerCourt up to date. All other costs will be in the discretion of theCommissioner of Requests.
Decree set aside.