Enso Nona v. Somawathie and Others (Jayasuriya, J.)
These findings are legal and lawful findings which are based onthe evidence adduced at this inquiry. In as much as Dissanayake,the second appellant has taken complete, control over the entirety ofthe paddy field excluding all others wrongfully advanced competingclaims to ande rights on his own behalf and has failed to give anyshare of the produce to his mother-in-law, who is the present andecultivator of the paddy field, the Inquiring Officer has held that therehas been an eviction of the original applicant-respondent from thepaddy field. I agree with the findings reached by the Inquiring Officer.There is no substantial misdirection in point of fact or law in regardto the relevant matters spotlighted by me in this judgment. There isno failure on the part of the Inquiring Officer to take into account theeffect of the totality of the evidence placed before him and there isno improper evaluation of evidence, on a consideration of the orderand the totality of the evidence placed at the inquiry. In the circum-stances, I hold that no error of law arises on this appeal and thiscourt is not entitled to interfere with the findings arrived at by theInquiring Officer – Babanis v. Jemma®. In the result, I proceed todismisss the appeals of the first and second appellants with costs ina sum of Rs. 3,150 payable by each of the appellants to the substitutedapplicant-respondents Ranasinghe Arachchige Somawathie andRanasinghe Arachchige Sirisena.
Appeal dismissed.