035-NLR-NLR-V-65-D.-A.-WANIGARATNE-Appellant-and-JUWANIS-APPUHAMY-et-al.-Respondents.pdf
Wanigaratne v. Juwarvis Appuhamy
167
Present: Herat, J., and Abeyesundere, J.A. WAJSTIGAEATNE, Appellant, and JUWANIS APPUHAMY
et al., Respondents
S. C. 370160—D. C. Tangalle, 494/L
Rei vindicatio action—Burden of proof—Duty of plaintiff to establish his ovm title.
In an action rei vindicatio the plaintiff must prove and establish his title. Hecannot ask for a declaration of title in his favour merely on the strength thatthe defendant’s title is poor or not established. 2
1 [1900) 4 N.L.R. 1.
2 (1945) 46 N.L.R. 553.
168
HEBAT, «J,— WaniQanXno v. Jxmania Appuhanijjr ..
IlPPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, TangaUe.
Nimal Senanayake, for Defendant-Appellant.
A. K. Premadaea, with D. R. P. Goonetilieke, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.
October 12,1962. Herat, J.—
In this case the plaintiifs-respondents brought an action rei vindicatioin respect of a paddy field against the 1st defendant-appellant. Theyjoined as defendants their vendors so as to warrant and defend quietpossession.
It has been laid down now by this Court that in an action rei vindicatiothe plaintiff should set out his title on the basis on which he claims a decla-ration of title to the land and must, in Court, prove that title against thedefendant in the action. The defendant in a rei vindicatio action neednot prove anything, still less, his own title. The plaintiff cannot ask for adeclaration of title in his favour merely on the strength that thedefendants title is poor or not established. The plaintiff must prove andestablish his title.
In this case, the plaintiffs produced a recent deed in their favour andfurther stated in evidence that they could not take possession of the sharespurchased by them because they were resisted by the 1st defendant.No effort was made to call any of the vendors to the plaintiffs to prove thepossession or title of the vendors. It is remarkable that one of the wit-nesses called by the plaintiffs, Saudiashamy, in his evidence, stated thatthe 1st defendant had been in possession of the paddy field and had beentaking ashare of the paddy, although the evidence of Saudiashamy does notclearly establish that the 1st defendant took the paddy or share of paddyfor herself, which still shows that she is not just an accidental trespasser,but has been in occupation of some portions of the field for someconsiderable period of time.
The learned District Judge, in his judgment expatiates on the weaknessof the defence case ; but unfortunately has failed to examine what title,if any, has been established by the plaintiffs. No evidence of title hasbeen established by the plaintiffs in our opinion.
We therefore allow the appeal with costs and dismiss the plaintiffs-respondents’ action in the Court below with costs.
The decree of the lower Court is set aside. 1st defendant-appellant isentitled to costs of appeal and costs in the Court of first instance.
Abkybsttndebb, J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed,