The said Muthuridee had signed the Deed of Gift No.22372 dated 04.03.1962.
Furthermore, the donees had been in'possession of theland in question for a period of over 30 years. The evidence ofPeter, one of the donees, clearly clarified this position.

Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2010] 1 SRILR.
For the reasons aforesaid the questions on which leave toappeal was granted by this Court are answered as follows:
yes, the High Court had erred in law in misinterpretingand misconstruing that there was no acceptance of theDeed of Gift by the donees;
yes, the High Court had erred in law in failing to considerthat the Deed of Gift on the fact of it clearly indicated thatthe life interest holder had signed in acceptance on behalfof the donees;
yes, the High Court was wrong in law in consideringthe question of non-acceptance of the Deed of Gift sincethere was a failure to raise an issue on that ground in theDistrict Court or to lead any evidence to that effect.
The judgment of the High Court dated 21.08.2008 is setaside and the judgment of the District Court dated 22.01.2001is affirmed. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
I make no order as to costs.
AMARATUNGA, J. – I agree.
RATNAYAKE, J. – I agree.
Appeal allowed.