Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2003] 3 Sri L.R
These answers as submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent clearly cuts across the defendant-appellant’s case. It is 310also to be noted that all the deeds marked by the defendant-appel-lant deal with amalgamated lots ‘J’ and ‘P’ describing the easternboundary as Totagewatta alias Water Course which in effect wouldinclude the road reservation. However these deeds will not conveytitle to the strip of land reserved in common as reservation forroads.
It is also submitted by counsel for the defendant-appellantthat the learned District Judge failed to consider the fact that as theresult of the widening of the main road a portion of the roadwayshown in plan No. 4005 marked P1 had been acquired and that 320compensation has been paid only to the defendant-appellant whichis borne out by the gazette notification marked V1. In fact the plain-tiff-respondent was questioned on this point by the counsel for thedefendant-appellant and I find that the plaintiff-respondent hasgiven a reasonable explanation in that he says that at that time hewas not the owner and that his predecessors in title were abroad.
It appears to me that the learned District Judge has evaluatedand analysed the evidence placed before him and has come to acorrect finding on facts. In the circumstances, I see no reason tointerfere with his judgment. Accordingly the appeal of the defendant 330-appellant will stand dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 5000/.
DISSANAYAKE, J. – I agreeAppeal dismissed.