Prescription to a land must be proved with reasonable explanation, not mere statements
In Prescription Cases: If You Don’t Challenge the Other Party’s Paper Title, the Burden Shifts to You to Prove Possession
Prescription to a land must be proved with reasonable explanation, not mere statements
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that when someone’s legal ownership through deeds (paper title) is not in dispute, the burden shifts to the person claiming prescriptive ownership to prove that they occupied the land openly, continuously, and in a manner adverse to the rights of the true owner. The Court emphasized that “when witnesses claim they have possession, the Court must insist on those words being reasonably explained and not by mere statements.”
In this case, the Supreme Court examined a dispute where the person claiming ownership by long possession had not challenged the other party’s paper title but instead gave contradictory and inconsistent evidence about how she came to occupy the land. Her own testimony revealed changing stories, at one point claiming possession through her husband, later as a licensee, and even applying for a state permit, all of which weakened her claim of continuous and independent possession.
The dispute was over a piece of land where the legal owner had bought the property and asked the court to remove a long-time occupant. The occupant refused, saying she had lived there since the late 1970s and had therefore become the owner through long use.
At the District Court, the judge accepted that the owner had legal deeds proving ownership but still ruled in favour of the occupant, deciding that she had gained ownership through long possession. The owner then appealed to the Civil Appellate High Court, which took a different view. That Court ruled that once the owner had proven legal title, the burden shifted to the occupant to show that her possession was truly independent.
The Supreme Court finally upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court found that the occupant’s own story was inconsistent and contradictory. At one point, she said she entered the land through her first husband, who was working for someone else. Later she said her second husband occupied it with permission from a monk, and even admitted to applying for a state permit to use the land which clearly meant she recognized that someone else owned it.
“…in the case of Leisa and another v Simon and another (2002) 1 SLR page 148 it has been held that, “Once paper title became undisputed the burden shifted to the defendants to show that they had independent rights in the form of prescription as claimed by them.”. This principle was previously followed by Gratiaen, J. in the case of R. W. Pathirana vs. R. E. De S. Jayasundara 58 NLR (159 – 177). But if that is so, the defendant-respondent has to prove before the trial court that she had undisturbed possession of the property. It is a well-accepted principle of law that to establish title on prescription to an immovable property, the claimant must establish an exclusive adverse possession against all other owners. The above principle of law has been written down under section 3 of the Prescription Ordinance, which has stipulated that the claimant must prove on a balance of probability that he or she had undisturbed and uninterrupted possession for a minimum period of ten years. In the case of Alwis vs Perera 21 NLR 321, it has been held that, when witnesses claim they have possession, the Court must insist on those words being reasonably explained and not by mere statements…” – Justice Menaka Wejesundera
Case No: SC/APPEAL/09/2017 [Decided on 31.07.2025]
Before: Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J., Achala Wengappuli, J. and Menaka Wijesundera,J.
