Answer Guide - Intermediate Year

Pro|Studies Student’s past paper Guide| Intermediate Year
First compiled and distributed in Sri Lanka in 2017 by the pro|studies

No 244, Hultsdorp Street, Colombo 12
Modified/updated and distributed by the Law Students’ Union of Sri Lanka 2019
No. 244, Hultsdorp Street, Colombo 12
Text and illustration copyright © Prostudies 2018/2019
The pro|studies and the pro|studies logo

and associate logos are trademarks
of the pro|studies
The Law Students Union of Sri Lanka is the sole student body operating with the
patronage of His Lordship the Chief Justice of the Republic of Sri Lanka and founded in
1894 as the Ceylon Law Students’ Union by Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, KC, CMG
All right reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying
or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher
A PDF document of this inscription will be available on pro|studies website/Facebook page

This document is for the sole purpose of assisting students in their academic activities.
Content of this document might consist of parts of Acts, Statutes,
Ordinance, Text Books, News Articles, Lecture Presentations
& Judgements. Due credit is given at such instances.
For free distribution

• Following document includes the syllabus for the second year and Text books
recommended by the lecturers for further readings.
• We have taken the liberty of including Model Answers compiled by our

fellow Final year students whom we owe our gratitude. Second year students
must note that following model answers for few subjects here included are
meant to guide the students of the areas that they must touch when writing
an answer and for not to be copied and pasted on the actual Question
Papers.
• Students are advised to follow the instruction given in the Question paper
when facing the exams.
• Answer all the questions including the Compulsory Question to secure your
marks in the examination. (ex: If the instruction given in the Question paper
is to answer only six questions including the compulsory first question do try
to answer all 6 questions)
• Students are advised to refer to the Lecture Slides as it is the authentic source
of subject content.
Special thank goes to our fellow Intermediate and Final year students who
worked hard to have this document completed.
1. Administrative Law
2. Law of Obligations II (Delict)
3. Law of Property
• Property I
• Property II
4. Law of Trust
5. Jurisprudence
6. International Law/ Intellectual Property Law
Administrative Law
APRIL 2018 /OCTOBER 2018
Discuss the development of public interest litigation in relation to the Sri Lankan legal system. (16
Marks)
In conventional litigation between 2 disputants, the parties are usually seeking to enforce certain rights
peculiar to them alone, which rights have arisen out of a past sequence of events. The court must then
decide issues of fact and law relating to these events and give the parties an appropriate remedy which
often includes the payment of compensation. The decisions of the courts will have no impact on the public
as a whole except in so far as it clarifies the law in regard to similar situations.
In cases of PIL on the other hand, the matter in dispute is usually an alleged violation of the rights of the
public or a segment of the community and the grievance is usually against the state, in regard to state
policy or executive action. The court will be asked to make a declaration on the law pertaining to the issue
and also to take appropriate remedial action rather than to merely to award compensation. As a result,
the decision of the court will usually have a general public impact although the case before it may actually
concern only a few affected individuals.
PIL has been recognized and developed by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court under the 1978 Constitution.
There was an explosion of PIL cases particularly in the last two years of the Sarath Silva Court. The latest
cases in that line are the SLIC case, the WATER’S EDGE case and the LMSL case. Those cases were
entertained by the court as cases bought “in the public interest”. They were significant in terms of the
orders made by court on the basis of Public Interest and the Public Trust Doctrine. In the SLIC case, the
court held the privatization of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation was null and void. In the LMSL case the
transfer of land by the state to a private party was declared illegal and in the WATER’S EDGE case the
lease of land was held to be null and void. Each of those cases involved significant and high-profile
contracts that had been entered into between the state and private actors, the reversal of which was
generally perceived as being significant in terms of upholding Rule of Law, Transparency and
Accountability regarding the exercise of executive power by the state.
The Constitution do not provide for PIL. However, starting from the case of WIJESIRI v. SIRIWARDENA to
the recent cases discussed above, the Sri Lankan courts, have, time to time, expanded the rules of
standing. It seems that the Sri Lankan courts have been influenced largely by the contemporary
developments in the Indian Jurisdiction in the recognition and development of PIL particularly in the late
1990s.
It is a prerequisite to the furtherance of PIL that parties are able to litigate either on their behalf or on
behalf of others. Article 126(2) of the Constitution itself permits any person either by himself or through
an Attorney-at-law on his behalf to petition the SC in respect of a violation of Fundamental Right. This was
recognized by Kulatunga J. in the case of SOMAWATHIE v. WEERASINGHE. The court in the case of
SRIYANI SILVA v. IDDAMALGODA permitted related parties to petition court especially in instances when
the person whose rights affected was incarcerated or dead.
A more important development that has taken place is the ability of third parties to bring actions on a
wide variety of matters on the basis that it affects their rights and the rights of the public at large.
The first significant case in this regard is that of BULANKULAMA v. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT which is also known as the (Eppawela Case). the petition was filed by a group of persons
resident in Eppawela, North Central Province, challenging the government’s decision to enter into an
agreement with FreePort Macmoran to mine a greater part of the rock Phosphate in the area. The
petitioner’s argued that such mining affected their rights, their environment and the national interest.
The respondents argued that the petitioners had no standing to bring such an action. Rejecting the
objection, the court held that the petitioners had sufficient standing in a matter such as this as it affected
their lives. In EGODAWELE v. DAYANANDA DISANAYAKE the Court permitted the petitioner to proceed
with a petition on the basis that the petitioner’s FR were infringed as others could not freely express their
franchise.
These cases dealt with individuals or groups of individuals petitioning court that their rights enjoyed
together with others had been infringed, a further expansion of standing took place in the case of
ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION Ltd. v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2004), where corporate
body acting in the Public Interest petitioned court in respect of the proposed privatization of the
management of the Galle Face Green.
Afterwards, the three sensational cases as discussed above; THE WATER’S EDGE case, LANKA MARINE
SERVICE case and PRIVATIZATION OF THE SRI LANKAN INSURANCE CORPORATION case, may be
considered the high watermark of PIL in SL, broadening the rules of standing and scope of such litigation.
Having examined the above cases of the Supreme Court, the following legal principles can be set out with
regard to the present position of PIL in Sri Lanka.
1. An individual affected by an administrative or policy decision can petition either the SC by way
of a Fundamental Rights Application or the Court of Appeal in a writ application.
2. An individual may petition court on a matter that affects him and the others similarly situated
having sufficient interest to do so.
3. Even a corporate body can act in the Public Interest on a matter on which it is concerned with.
4. A person can petition the SC in the Public Interest on a matter that does not impact him
individually, so long as he does so as a citizen and a public-spirited person seeking to do his duty
in protecting public resources.
5. All power and all organs of government are under a duty to act in terms of the Rule of Law.
6. Public resources and public power is held in trust by officials elected and unelected to be used
for the benefit of the public.
7. Officials in acting for the public benefit must not mechanically follow procedures and rules but
look at the final result to ascertain if their policy or actions result in benefit to the people. This
is the HIGH STANDARD of efficiency and effectiveness expected of the public service.
8. The courts will be creative, within the framework of the law in giving effective relief in respect
of PIL.
The above conclusions indicate that all barriers to standing in regard to PIL via a Fundamental Rights
Application in the SC have been removed and that the stage is set for more persons to challenge
administrative policy and actions.
Surprisingly, once these legal barriers to standing have been removed; there has not been a plethora of
cases filed in the Public Interest especially on behalf of the underprivileged and the marginalized as hinted
by court in the WATER’S EDGEE case. certainly, in India, this is the thrust of Public Interest Litigation,
which seeks to curtail air pollution, improve the standards of sanitation, prison reform, improving access
to education and the like, filed on behalf of persons who are too indigent or ignorant of their right to
vindicate them.
The success of PIL is not only dependent on the legal regime, but also on a vigilant public, the attitude of
the judiciary and in the end on the implementing agency.
Ridge Vs Baldwin
The concept of natural justice in regarded as an important procedural safeguard against any abuse.
Arbitrary or undue use of powers by the administrative authorities. It occupies a significant place in Sri
Lankan administrative law.
The year 1963 showed to be a training point in the development of the concept of natural justice. Not
only in Britain but also in the common law world as well.
Before 1963 in Britain the courts refused to apply natural justice to administrative proceedings. However,
the liberal trend was initiated in Britain. In 1963 with the land mark decision of this case. It was a labor
law case heard by the H.O.L.
Facts
The Brighton Police authority dismissed its chief constable C.Charles Ridge without offering him an
opportunity to defend his actions. The chief constable appealed arguing that the Brighton watch
committee had acted unlawfully in terminating his appointment in 1958 following criminal proceedings
against him.
Judgment
The H.O.L held that the police regulations had set down a procedure that should be followed also because
there was a lack of natural justice , he had neither been told of the reasons for dismissed, not given the
opportunity to put his case to the watch committee had violated the doctrine of natural justice.
Significance
This case was the first time that the doctrine had been used to over-….. a non juridical or quasi – juridical
fairness) into the redeem of administrative decision making.
As a result the case has been described as the land mark cases that opened up decisions taken by British
executive review.
This case transformed the restrictive judicial attitude regarding the applicability of natural justice in public
administration and not only in Britain but in the entire common law world including Sri Lanka.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
This is an important HOL decision in the area of English Administrative law, establishing in particular that
any error of law made by a public body will make it’s decision a nullity and that a statutory exclusion clause
does not deprive the Courts from their jurisdiction in judicial review unless it expressly states this.
Facts
as a result of the Suez crisis some mining properties of the appellant Anisminic located in the Sinkoi
Peninsula were seized by the Egyptian Government before November 1956. The Appellant then sold the
mining properties to an Egyptian government owned organization called TEDO in 1957.
In 1959, a piece of subordinate legislation was passed under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950, to
distribute compensation paid by the Egyptian government to the UK government, with respect to British
properties it had nationalized.
The appellants claimed that they were eligible for compensation under this piece of subordinate
legislation which was determined by a tribunal set up under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950.
The Tribunal however, decided that the appellants were not eligible for compensation because their
‘successor in title’ (TEDO) did not have the British nationality as required under one of the provisions of
the subordinate legislation.
Issues
There were two important issues of the appeals to the court of appeal and later to the House of Lords.
1. The first was whether the tribunal had made an error lco in construing the term ‘successor of the
tittle’ under the subordinate legislation.
2. The second issue was more complex and had implications for the law on Judicial review. Even if
the tribunal had made an error of law, the House of Lords had to decide whether or not an
appellate court had the jurisdiction to intervene in the tribunal’s decision. Section 4(4) of the
Foreign Compensation Act 1950 stated that “The determination by commission of any application
made to them under this act shall not be called in to question in any court of law’ This was a so-
called outer clause.
The House of Lords Decision
Anisminic Ltd vs foreign Compensation commission by a 3-2 majority, the HOL decided that section 4(4)
of the foreign compensation act did not preclude the court from inquiring whether or not the order of the
tribunal had misconducted the term ‘successor in tittle’ and that the determination by the determination
by the defendant tribunal that the appellant did not qualify to be paid compensation was null and they
were entitle to have a share of the compensation fund paid by the Egyptian government.
Effect of the decision.
The decision illustrates the Evarts reluctance to give effect to any legislative provision that attempts to
exclude their jurisdiction in judicial reference. Even when such an exclusion is relatively clearly worded
the courts will hold that it does not preclude them from the decision on an error of law when such an
error occurs. It also establishes that any error of law by a public body will result in its decision being ultra
vires
Law of Obligations II
Delict 2018 October 02
"A" wk;=rlg uqyqK mdkafka ckdlS¾K ud¾.hl § ly$ iqÿ brla fkdue;s ia:dkhla yryd
Èùfï §" "B" úiska Odjkh lrk ,o r:hla Tyq u;ska hdfuka t;k§u ureuqjg m;a ùfuks' "B"
g tfrysj "A" f.a jekaoUqj iy nd, jhia orejka úiska Wmldrh wysñ ùu i|yd jkaÈ ,nd
.ekSu i|yd jQ kvqjl§ ñh.sh "A" f.a iyhl fkdie,ls,a, hk ú;a;sjdplh .ekSug "B"
n,dfmdfrd;a;= fõ' "B" iu. mj;akd Wmfoia idlÉPdjl § tlS ú;a;sjdplh iïnkaOfhka "B"g
Wmfoia fokak'
fuys§ A wk;=rg uqyqK mdkafka ckdlS¾K ud¾.hl ly$ iqÿ brla fkdue;s ia:dkhla yryd mdr
udreùfï§ h' tuksid fuys§ A f.a ;ud ms<sn|j jQ fkdie,ls,a, o fuu wk;=rg fya;=ù we;' tu
ksid iïmQ¾K jro B f.a fkdjk w;r fuu wk;=r i|yd A o j.lsj hq;=fõ'
tu ksid fuys§ B f.a tkï j.W;a;rlref.a j.lSfuka fldgila bj;a lsÍug A f.a iyhl
fkdie,ls,a, Bg rlaIKhla$ ú;a;sjdplhla f,i Ndú; l< yelsh'
iyhl fkdie,ls,a, È,sla; kvqlr ioyd mj;sk tla rlaIKhls' meñKs,slref.au
fkdie,ls,af,ka Tyqg ydkshla isÿj we;s úfgl ta ms<sn|j jQ kvqlrhl § wod< lr.; yels
ú;a;sjdplhls' fuh ksh; rlaIKhla fkdfõ'
idudkH Í;sh jkafka fuu.ska j.W;a;rlref.a j.lSu iïmQ¾Kfhkau bj;a fkdlsÍuhs' isÿ jQ
w,dNhg j.W;a;rlref.a jrfoa m%udKhg Tyq j.lSug nef|a' j.lSfï b;sß fldgi w,dNhg
fya;= jQ meñKs,slreg mejf¾'
frdau ,kafoais kS;sh hgf;a fÉ;dkaú;j lrkq ,nk ydkshl§ fuu rlaIKh wod, lr.;
fkdyel' meñKs,slreg ;=jd, isÿlsÍu i|yd jQ fÉ;kdj u.ska ish¨u iSudjka hgm;a lrkq
,efí' fï iïnkaO iSudjka frdau ,kafoais kS;sh fkdolajk neúka bx.%Sis kS;sh wod< lr .kshs'
fuu rlaIKfha moku meñKs,slreg ;ud flfrys meje;s wjOdkSh hq;l
= u fkdi,ld yeÍuhs'
fuys§ j.W;a;rlre úiska Tmamq l< hq;af;a"
^1& meñKs,slre úiska ;u hym; ;ld fhÈh hq;= idOdrK wjOdkh fkdfh¥ nj;a
^2& wjOdkh ke;sùfuka ;udg isÿ jQ ydkshg odhl jQ njhs' ^ wjOdkh hkafkka woyia lrkqfha
idOdrK nqoaêu;a mqoa.,fhl= i;= úh hq;=&
by; lreKq fol Nance v. British Colombia electric co. ltd. kvqfõ § o ;SrKh úh'
fuu uQ,O¾uh fh§fï§ fhdod .kakd Í;Ska lSmhls'
01' ish,a, fyda lsisjla ke;. (All or nothing rule)

ñka woyia jkafka fomd¾Yjh u jrola l,úg ydksh fldmuK iq¿ jqj;a" ydksfha fya;=j isÿ
l< md¾Yjh fj; j.lSu mejßh hq;= njhs'
frdau ,kafoais kS;sh yd bx.%Sis kS;sh hk fofla§u fuu Í;sh wkq.ukh flf¾'
Butterfied V. Farester
j.W;a;rlre mdr yryd oud ;snqKq lKqjl meñKs,slref.a wYajhd yemqKs' meñKs,slre úisù
f.dia ;=jd, úh' meñKs,slre w,dN b,a,d kvq mejrE w;r ;SrKh jQfha meñKs,slref.a wêl
fõ.h wk;=rg fya;=j ksid ysñlï fkd,efnk njh'
bx.%Sis kS;sfhys zish,a, fyda lsisjla ke;Z Í;sh wjidk Í;sh u.ska Wkkaÿ lrjkq ,en we;'
02' wjidk wjia:d Í;sh (Last opportunity rule)

wjidk wjia:d Í;sh hkq" fomd¾Yjhu fkdie,ls,su;aj ù we;s úgl§ tla md¾Yjhl
fkdie,ls,su;alu ksid isÿ jQ m%;sM,h u.yrjd .ekSug" wjidk wjia:dj ysñj ;snQ md¾Yjhg
muKla ydkshg j.lSu mejÍu ls'
Devis v. Mann
fuu kvqfõ ;SrKfha § Salmond J. fuu Í;sh ks¾udKh lrk ,§'
meñKs,slre Tyqf.a nQrejdf.a bÈß mdohg ú,x.= oud ud¾.fha ksoe,af,a hjk ,§' wYaj r:fhka
meñKs j. W;a;rlre W! ymamdf.k .sfhah' ;SrKh jQfha wYajlre wjOdkfhka r:h .uka lf<a
kï wjodku u.yrjd .ekSfï yelshdj ;snQ neúka j.W;a;rlre j.lsj hq;= njhs'
Union Government V. Lee " Pierce V. Hauman jeks ol=Kq wm%sldkq kvq j,§o fuu Í;sh
wkq.ukh lr we;'
veksfh,a t' l=f¾ ,xldfõ§ fuu Í;sh wod, lr.;a wjia:djls' fuu kvqfõ § W.ila iïnkaOj
.eg¿ u;=jQ w;r wjidk wjia:d Í;sh fhdod .ekSug fkdyels úh'
.ufka fõ.fhka fhfok fudag¾ r:j, we;sjk .eàï i|yd fuu Í;sh fh§u ÿIalrh'
British Colombia Railway Co. V. Loach
fuu kvqfõ§ rdcdêlrKh fuu Í;sh ms<sn| iqug lsÍula y÷kajd fok ,§' fuu ;SrKh wkqj
iuyr wjia:dj,§ l,ams; j wjidkh wdfrdamKh flf¾'
^1& hï ;eke;af;l= ;u fkdie,ls,su;a l%shdfõ§ wjidk wjia:d Í;sh m%fhdackhg .ekSug

wiu;a úh ^Wod(- fodaI iys; ;sßx. iys; jdykhla mojk úg&
^2& wk;=rl tla md¾Yjhla wk;=reodhl nj ms<sn| fkdoekqj;a jkúg yd wfkla md¾Yjh ta
fkdoekqj;a nj ms<sn|j oksñka" kuq;a ta fkdoekqj;a nfõ m%;sM,h f,i isÿ jk ydksh
u.yrjd .ekSug idOdrK wjOdkhla fhduq fkdlrk úg
fuu Í;sh" wkqñ; wjia:d Í;sh" f,io .; yelsh'
by; kvqfõ § isÿjQfha úÿ,s ÿïßhla ÿïßh yria mdrl § wYaj r:hl .eàu h' wYaj lr;af;a isá
mqoa.,hd ñh hk ,§' tu ;eke;a;df.a nQo,fha woañksia;%dislre jkaÈ b,a,d kvq mejÍh' úÿ,s
ÿïßfha ;sßx. fyd| ;;ajfha fkd;snqKq neúka kj;d .ekSug fkdyelsj wk;=r isÿj we;s neúka
th iud.fï jrola nj ;SrKh úh'
kdúl wk;=re isÿ jQ wjia:dj,§ o fuu Í;sh fhdod .ekSu wmyiqh' ulaksido fomd¾Yjhu
fkdie,ls,a, hï úfgl isÿ jQ úg yd wk;=rla isÿj th u.yrjd .ekSfï wjidk wjia:dj
;snqfKa ljr md¾Yajhg o hkak oek .ekSu wmyiqh'
Admiralthy commissioners V. S.S. Volute
fuys§ fj<| kejla yd hqO kejla .eà ;snqKs' wk;=rg fya;=j fj<| kej k,dj y~ fkdk.d
.uka lsÍu;a hqo kej wk;=r wkdjrKh lr.ekSfuka wk;=rej;a wêl fõ.fhka .uka lsÍuh'
wêlrKh ;SrKh lf<a tla md¾Yajhl fkdie,ls,a, wjika jk úg wfkla md¾Yjfha
fkdie,ls,a, werfUk njhs' ta wkqj ixidokh ms<sn| mq¿,a mÍlaIKhlg jdisodhl f,i
wjidk wjia:d Í;sh m%;l
s afIam fldg md¾Yjhka fol iudkj j.lsj hq;= w;r w,dN fomd¾Yjh
w;r úNdckh lrk ,§'
Swadling V. Cooper
ish¨ §,sla; kvqj,§ wkq.ukh l< yels jk f,i idñ uka;%S uKav,h úiska Volute ;SrKh
wkq.ukh lrk ,§' ßhÿrl=f.a fkdie,ls,a, ksid yria mdrlska meñKs fudag¾ ihsl,alrefjl=
urKhg m;aúh' urKhg fya;=j fudag¾ ihsl,alref.a iyhl fkdie,ls,a, nj ;SrKh l<
wêlrKh Volute wkq.ukh lrñka w,dN úNdckh lrk ,§'
fuu kvq ;Skaÿj,ska miqj wjidk wjia:d Í;sh fkdjeo.;a njg m;ajQ w;r ixidOkh ms<sn|
ir,$ idOdrK;aj mÍlaIKh wjidk Í;sh wNsnjkh lrñka ,§'
W. H. Bus Co. V. Samaranayaka

j.W;a;rlref.a ßhÿrdf.a fkdie,ls,a, ms<sn|j meñKs,slre oek isàfuka wk;=r idOdrKj
u.yeÍug ;snqfKa hk u;h u.ska idOdrK mÍlaIKh u.ska fuu kvqj ;SrKh lrk ,§'
Silva v. Gunawardana
fudag¾ r: folla .eàfuka isÿjQ wk;=frka fomd¾Yjfhau fkdie,ls,a, ;sfíkï
j.W;a;rlref.a fkdie,ls,a, ;SrKd;aul kï meñKs,slreg jkaÈ .; yels nj ;Sr Kh úh'
tx.,ka;fha" ol=Kq wm%sldfõ" Y%S ,xldfõ w,dN úNdckh lsÍu iïnkaOj jHjia :dms; kS;s
j¾;udkh jkúg mkjd we;s w;r tu.ska fï iïnkaO fmdÿ kS;s isoaOdka; wj,x.= lrk ,§'
Wod(- 1' tx.,ka;fha - 1945 kS;s m%;sixialrK ^iy' fkdie'& mk;
2' ol=Kq wm%sldfõ - 1956 jkaÈ úNdck mk;
3' Y%S ,xldfõ -1968$12 kS;s m%;sixialrK ^ iyhl fkdie,ls,a, yd taldnoaO jrolrejka&
mk;
iyhl fkdie,ls,a, iïnkaO iSudjka

^1& meñKs,slre wjOdkfhka isáh hq;= kuq;a fjk;a ;eke;a;kaf.a fkdie,ls,a, ms<sn| l%shdjlg
tfrysj mQ¾j Wmdhka fh§ug ne£ ke;'
Gee v. Metropolitan Railway

ÿïßhl .uka .;a uf.a tl jgmsgdj keröug ÿïßh ueÈß fodrlg we, ù isá w;r ÿïßh iud.ï
fiajlhkaf.a fkdie,ls,a, fya;=fjka fodr jikq fkd,eîu ksid meñKs,slre ìug weo jegqKs'
ir, mQ¾fjdamdh u.ska meñKs,slreg tu wk;=r j,lajd .; yelsj ;snqK kuq;a ÿïßh iud.u
wk;=r i|yd j.lsj hq;= nj ;SrKh úh'
^2& <ore nj$ nd,jhialdr;ajh jeks fkdyelshdjka we;s wfhl=g tfrysj iyhl fkdie,ls,a,
Tmamq l< fkdyel' Culpae incapax g wkqj wjqreÿ 7g wvq <uqka fï hg;g jefgk w;r fuh
Bg jeä jhia uÜgïj, <uqkag wod< fkdfõ' <ufhl=f.a fkdie,ls,a, jeäysáfhl=f.a ;rï
odhljk yeisÍula fkdfõ'
fuys ;SrKd;aul idOlh orejdf.a uki h' tneúka fuu lreKq Tmamq lsÍfï§ jhi" nqoaêh"
mßirh yd Tyqf.a udkjl fïrENdjhg wjOdkh fhduq l< hq;=h'
Jones V. Santon
fuu kvqfõ § by; ;;a;ajhka wkdjrKh úh'
Lynch v. Nurdin
j.W;a;rlre úiska fkdie,ls,af,ka ;u wYaj r:h ùÈhl ksoe,af,a ;nd ;snQ úg wjqreÿ 7l
meñKs,slre thg ke. l%Svd lrkakg úh' fjk;a <ufhl= wYajhd olalk ,o w;r meñKs,slre
;=jd, úh' j.W;a;rlre ;¾l lf<a meñKs,slre idudkH wjOdkhla fhÿfõ kï wk;=r fkdjk
njhs' wêlrKfha ;SrKh jQfha fu;rï l=vd orefjl=f.ka tjeks wjOdkhla wfmalaId l<
fkdyels njhs'
Yochuk V. Oliver
<uhdf.a iyhl fkdie,ls,a, ms<sn| ;¾lh m%;slafIam úh'
^3& hul=f.a fkdie,ls,af,ka wfkla md¾Yjhg wdikak wk;=reodhl njla we;s jQ úg Tyq úiska
.kakd ,o l%shdud¾.h fya;=fjka Tyq ydkshg m;ajQ úg Tyqg tfrys iyhl fkdie,ls,a,
fhdod.; fkdyels fõ'
Jones v. Boyce
j.W;a;rlref.a nifha fodaIhla fya;=fjka th fmr,Sug b;d wdikak wka;rdhldÍ ;;a;ajhla
we;súh' .uka.;a u.sfhl= jQ meñKs,slre r:fhka ìug mekSu ksid ll=, leäks' kuq;a r:h
wk;=rg m;a fkdùh' wêlrKh ;SrKh lrk ,oafoa meñKs,slre b;d wk;=reodhl u úl,amh
.;a;o j.W;a;rlre j.lSug hg;a jk njh'
Newman V. East London Electricity Co. Ltd.

by; ;;a;ajh u m%ldY úh'
fï wkqj iyhl fkdie,ls,af,a§ B úiska"

• meñKs,slre ;ud úiska ;udf.au hym; ;ld fhÈh hq;= idOdrK wjOdkh fh§u l<
hq;=j ;snQ nj'
• tf,i wjOdkh fkdfh§fuka meñKs,slreg isÿ jQ ydkshg j. W;a;rlreg j.lSug
fkdnefËk nj' tkï meñKs,slreg isÿ jQ ydkshg Tyqu odhl jQ nj
Tmamq l< hq;=h' túg B g wk;=r iïnkaO iïmQ¾K j.lSu we;s fkdfõ'
Abeysundara v. Abeysundara Nee Edirisinghe
❖ Facts of the case

The Plaintiff married Abeysundara in 1958 and lived together as husband and wife. Abeysundara
met the defendant in 1979. Later Abeysundara filed divorce action against the Plaintiff in 1980
which was dismissed by the DC in 1985. In 1985, Abeysundara purported to marry the defendant
under Muslim Law in October, 1985.
The present case under scrunity, was filed in April 1986.
Abeysundera was convicted under section 362(B) of the Penal Code for bigamy. On appeal to
High Court, he was acquitted. However, on appeal to Supreme Court, a bench of five judges, by
judgment dated December 16, 1997, set aside the judgment of High Court and affirmed the
conviction of Abeysundera. The Supreme Court further held that the purported marriage between
Abeysundera and the respondent Kanthika Edirisinghe was void.
The position of Abeysundara was that his marriage with the plaintiff had completely broken down
in 1978 and the plaintiff alleges that respondent started an affair with Abeysundara which resulted
in the breakage of her marriage.
⚫ The cause of action of the plaintiff can be broken down as follows -

1. The defendant alienating the plaintiff’s consortium;
2. Enticing him away from the plaintiff committing matrimonial offences;
3. Holding out by the defendant of a marriage to the defendant by the plaintiff’s husband;
4. The defendant has intentionally caused injury to the plaintiff’s good name, reputation, dignity
and her feelings;
5. Destroyed the matrimonial home, consortium, companionship, assistance and privileges;
6. Broke up her marriage and home.
Therefore, impairment of plaintiff’s personality
Applicable law Roman Dutch Law
Majority judgement - Does not expressly state as to whether the action should proceed
and satisfy the requirements of an Aquilian action
M.J quoting Mckerron states that damages for loss of consortium must be actually proved..
Black's Law Dictionary defines consortium as follows: "The benefits that one person, especially
a spouse is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid,
financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations."
✓ The M.J held that the defendant did break the consortium and commit adultery with
Abeysundera.
In Strydom Vs Saayman "An action by a wife for damages, against the woman with whom her
husband has committed adultery, lies on the simple ground of the injury done to the wife,
irrespective of whether the woman was an inciter of the adultery or merely a passive or weakly
consenting party, and irrespective of whether the wife is married in or out of community of
property."
⚫ Dissenting judgement - Specifically provides that the action does fall within an actio
injuriarum.
*** however, thereafter proceeds on the basis that damages must be actually proved.
*** it also placed emphasis on Animus injuriandi as an essential requirement to be proved.
The notion 'loss of consortium' referred to in the plaint is defined in Kungl Vs Schiefer and in
that decision Schroeder J A held:
"The term 'consortium' is not susceptible of precise or complete definition but, broadly
speaking, companionship, love, affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse -all
belonging to the marriage state - take together make up what we refer to as consortium."
The consortium which is an aspect of marital relationship would liable to be lost due to the acts
such as enticement, harbouring one of the spouses, holding out that the defendant is married to the
husband/wife of the plaintiff and the like.
The law of Actio Injuriarum as found in Roman Dutch Law should be applied in this instance since
it is a claim for injuria caused to the plaintiff.
In Actio Injuriarum, two essential elements are to be established in order to impose liability.
1. First being the act constituting an impairment of the plaintiff's personality and
2. The second being the wrongful intent (dolus) on the part of the defendant.
❖ Wrongful intent is termed as animus injuriandi.
As in all other regular actions, burden to prove those ingredients lies on the plaintiff. In this case
the acts alleged to have been caused by the defendant include adultery, enticement, breaking up
the plaintiff's consortium, harbouring the husband of the plaintiff, holding out that the defendant
is married to Abeysundara though he, in fact is the husband of the plaintiff.
✓ Simultaneously, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish the wrongful intent of the
defendant as well.
✓ Proof of intention can be determined upon considering the acts and the attitudes of the
parties concern. In this regard guidance could be obtained from the case Gottlied Vs Gleiser
In Woodwiss Vs Woodwiss it was held that the plaintiff must prove that that a third party has
acted deliberately to entice the wife to leave the husband, therefore depriving him of her
consortium.
"The South African Law of Husband and Wife" by H.R. Hahlo states thus:
"Only an intentional intetference with the consortium is actionable, just as only an intentional
inducement of breach of contract founds an action for damages."
RG Mckerron Wrongs against the marriage relationships

"Damages are recoverable by the injured spouse on two grounds-
(1) loss of consortium, and
(2) injuria.
In assessing the damages recoverable under the first head the court must attempt to estimate as
best it can in terms of money the actual damage sustained by the injured spouse in consequence of
the loss of the society, comfort and services of the guilty spouse.
In assessing damages recoverable under the second head the court must have regard to all the
circumstances of the case; in particular, to the terms upon which the spouse lived with one another,
and the circumstances which the adultery took place.
Adultery - sexual intercourse by a lawfully married person with any person other than his or
her spouse
✓ DOLUS is an essential ingredient to impose liability for adultery.
Mckerron does not include Adultery specifically under the Actio injuriarum, even though the
learned judge has done so in the dissenting judgement.
**During the subsistence of the marriage, unless the spouses are judicially seperated or voluntarily
living apart, the husband has a right to the comfort, society and services of a wife.
➢ Therefore it is a wrong at the suit of the husband to procure, entice or persuade his wife to
leave him or stay away from him against his will.
Adultery
Adultery is sexual intercourse by a lawfully married person with any person other than his or her spouse.
In the law of Hull and adultery was a criminal offense, but in South Africa law it has ceased to be treated
as such,
A civil action for damages however lies at the suit of the spouse whose marriage rights have been violated.
In practice the action is generally brought by the husband against a man who committed adultery with his
wife, but it is also open to the wife against a woman with has committed adultery with her husband.
A claim for damages for adultery is as a rule instituted in conjunction with a claim by a husband against
his wife for divorce, the adulterer being joined as co- defendant or as he is usually designated in such a
case co-responded.
But the two claims are separate and destined and it has been held that the fact that no action has been
taken against the wife is no bor to a claim for damages against in the adulterer or (semble) in on
appropriate case to a claim for an interdict.
Although adultery is a wrong which will ground on action for damages it should be noted that it is not a
wrong in respect of which the innocent spouse may institute a claim for damages against the guilty spouse.
Distribution of proveni and Acquired property in Binna Marriage.
The register is the best evidence of a Binna marriage. However Dingiri Amma V Rathnathilake held that
oral evidence can be led to establish that the marriage was not in Binna since the Kandyan Law Ordinance
does not contain separate provisions relating to inheritance right to immovable property in Binna
marriages property devolves as in the case of Diga marriage.
Sec.11.(1)(b) of the widow remorries in binna she desrid lose a right to maintenance act of poroveni like
a widow who remorries in diga. There is a difference in regard to devolution of property in the case of a
woman married in Binna and living on her father’s property. In such a situation her property will not
devolve on her daughters and descendants married in Diga ( Sec 18(2) ).
But if she married in Binna and to live on her mother’s property, her property devolves on all her children
and descendants in equal shares irrespective of the type of the marriage.
A widower of a Binna marriage cannot inherit his wife’s immovable property. In Tikiri Banda V Appuhamy
the court held that the Diga marriage has wife inherit in his wife’s acquired property and any person who
purchases a share of property from and heir of the descendant woman cannot 2222 the possession of the
property until the death of the husband of the deceased woman as he has a life 8888 husband of Binna
marriage does not exit such arrived. (Sec 22)
Nazi Pardy under Hitler converd the liberal democratic German Statute into on unrecognizable,
abomination of tyrony. Under Hitler German Political system features.
01. Frequent retroactive laws punishing the guiltless or excusing atrocities.
02. Enforcement of secret laws that deemed citizens the guidence of the law.
03. Uncontrolled discreotings that indendified the law with the monitory wishes of the officials .
04. The feet that a verbal order by Hitler was regarded as sufficient authority to exterminate thousands
of people.
05. Frequent law lessens seen in the practice of extra judicial punishment by the state acting through the
perdy in the streets a cuphesim or pordy thossery.
06. Total intimiclation of coords, which did the bidding of pordy officials and the requirement that judges
decide cases as the further 999.
07. Unification of legislative, executive and judicial power in the person of Adolf Hitler. ( The fhurer
principle)
The question that Fuller raised was ahether in such conditions there can be a legal system capable of
producing laws in meaningful sense.
According to Gustral B Redbruch there are 3 aspects to law serves expediency the 000 purposes of human
co-evidence. It serves justice and it promotes legal certainty. He wrote that legal certainty may justify the
validity of unja or independent that nazi law was in same respect allegation because morality cannot be
completely divorce from the content and operation of the legal system.
thus fuller sees the need for a connection between law and morality by means of reason for an example
the ex post facto creation of the crime of genocide to punis nazi for chat had not been illegal under Third
Reich laws, even though they were always morally unsatisfactionary and unacceptable.
The need for a legal system is to produce rules for governing people’s behavior that are consistent with
the moral objectives of society which leads to what he calls the inner morality of law. internal to the
system because they are a necessary intrinsic application of the morality behind it.
He summarized these ideas as comprising 08 principals
1) There must be known and ongoing rules of conduct expressed in General terms, nor random
orders or instructions.
2) The rules must not be retrospective, as it could be wrong to punish or disadvantage people for
crimes or breaches of law for things which were not wrong or illegal at the time they were done.
3) The publications of the rules were essential so that people know in advance what they are and
what is expected of them.
4) Rules have to be intelligible, expressed in terms that are understandable as they must be clear.
5) The rules should be consistent and no contradiction.
6) It must be possible for people to obey the rules as it is pointless to have laws which the public are
unable to obey.
7) Law should remain as constant as possible, as frequent changing of rules leads to uncertainty and
inability to keep up with the laws requirements.
8) The administration of the rules should be consistent the officials applying and enforcing them
heirs obliged to behave in a manner that confirms to their content.
These principles in their totality are necessary before any section of rules can be considered to
constitate a proper legal system. The requirements are aspirations and some legal systems may
operate better or worse according to the degree to which they may or may not take heard all the
principles.
The opponents of fuller such as Hart argues that it is not necessary for the principles to be moral or
such but for fuller a legal system that does have these divining principles behind it will in any event
he a moral one.
iydhl fkdie,ls,a, hkq meñKs,slreg ;udf.au fkdie,ls,a, ksid ydkshla isÿjQ

wjia:djl§ j.W;a;rlreg Ndú;d l<yels rlaIKhls' wod< ydksh ú;a;slre úiska
fÉ;kdkaj;j u isÿlf,a kï fuh ú;a;sjdplhla f,iska whÈh fkdyel' j¾;udkfha fï ms<sn|
idudkH Í;sh jkafka j.W;a;rlre iïmQ¾Kfhka u j.lSfuka bj;a fkdlsÍu hs' ta fjkqjg
j.W;a;rlref.a jrfoa m%udKhg j.W;a;rlre j.lSug nef|k w;r b;sß m%udKh
fkdie,ls,su;a md¾Yajh fj; mejf¾'
iydhl fkdie,ls,a, ú;a;sjdplhla f,i bÈßm;a jQ úg meñKs,slreg ;ud flfrysu mej;sh

hq;= wjOdkSh hq;=lu ms<sn| j kS;sh úiska i,ld nef,a' meñKs,slreg ;ud flfrysu mej;sh
hq;= wjOdkSh hq;=lu fkdi,ld yeÍu fuu ú;a;j s dplfhys mokuhs' fuys§ j.W;a;rlre úiska
Tmamq l<hq;= hehs n,dfmdfrd;a;= jkafka
• meñKs,slre úiska ;udf.au hym; ;ld fhÈh hq;= idOdrK wjOdkh fkdfhÿ nj;a
• tfia wjOdkh ke;s ùfuka ;udgu isÿjQ ydkshg odhl jQ nj;ah'
kuq;a iydhl fkdie,ls,a, ms<sn| ú;a;sjdplh ;=, meñKs,slref.a fkdie,ls,a, hk lreKq
m%Odk wjia:d 03 l§ ie,ls,a,g ,la fkdfõ' tkï tu wjia:djkays§ iydyl fkdie,ls,a,
hkak ú;a;sjdplhla f,i bÈßm;a lsÍug j.W;a;rlreg fkdyel'
01& meñKs,slre <ufhl= jQ úg
jhi wjq( 7g wvq orejka culpae incapax tkï fyd| iy krl fjkafldg yÿkd.ekSug fkdyels
msßila njg jQ mQ¾jks.ukhla mj;shs' tneúka meñKs,slre wjq(7g jvd wvq wfhla jQ úg iydhl
fkdie,ls,a, ú;a;sjdplhla f,i bÈßm;a l< fkdyel' tneúka fuu uQ,O¾uh orejka flfrys
wod< ùfï§ Tjqkaf.a jhi " fm!oa.,sl .=Kdx. ^ attributes & hkdÈh flfrys wjOdkh fhduql<
hq;= nj olajd we; ' tneúka fujeks <ufhl=f.ka fyda fm!oa.,sl fkdyelshdjlska
fmf,kafkl=f.ka idudkH uÜgfï hq;=lula idOdrKj wfmalaId l< fkdyels nj wêlrK
u.ska ms,s.kshs' ;jo fuys§ wjOdkh fhduqlrkq ,nk ;j;a lreKla jkafka jhi wjq(7g wvq
orefjl=g hï wk;=rla j,lajd .ekSug l%shdud¾. .ekSug ;rï yelshdjla fkdue;s njhs '
Lynch v. Nurdin ys§ j.W;a;rlre úiska ksoe,af,a ;nd ;snQ wYaj lr;a;ldrhg jhi
wjq(7la jQ meñKs,slre l%Svd lsÍu msKsi ke. ;snqKs' fjk;a <ufhl= úiska wYajhd olajkq ,ÿj
meñKs,slre ;=jd, ,eîh' wk;=r ioyd j.W;a;rlre j.lsj hq;=hehs fpdaokd t,a, úh'
meñKs,slre idudkH wjOdkhla fhÿfõ kï wk;=r j<lajd .ekSug yelshdj ;snqKq njg ;¾l
l< ú;a;slre iydhl fkdie,ls,a, ms<sn| lreKq bÈßm;a lf<ah' kuq;a wêlrKh m%ldY lf<a
idudkH wjOdkh hkq meñKs,slref.a ;;ajfha flfkl=f.ka idOdrK f,i wfmalaId l<yels
uggul wjOdkhla nj;a ieneúkau fu;rï l=vd orefjl=f.ka wfmalaId l< fkdyels nj;ah'
02& wk;=rla isÿúh fkdyels njg meñKs,slreg Wml,amkh l,yels ùu'
meñKs,slre wjOdkfhka hq;=úh hq;= kuq;a fkdie,ls,a, ms<sn| j yqÿ yelshdj mQ¾jdfmalaIKh
lsÍug ne§ ke;' wka ;eke;a;ka Tjqkaf.a wdrlaIdj ms<sn| j ksis ie,ls,af,ka l%shdlrk nj
ks.ukh lsÍug hï ;eke;a;l=g ysñlu we;s w;r tuksid fjk;a wfhl=f.a fkdie,ls,a,
ms<sn| l%shdjlg tfrysj mQ¾fjdamdhka fh§ug ne§ ke;'
Gee v. Metropolitan Railway ys§ j.W;a;rldr ÿïßh iud.ug wh;a ÿïßfha fiajlhka úiska
fkdie,ls,su;a j ÿïßfha fodr jid fkd;enQ fyhska bka msg;g weo jegqkq meñKs,slre g jkaÈ
ysñjk nj wêlrKh ;SrKh lrk ,§' ÿïßfha fodr h;=re mÍlaId lsÍfï ir, mQ¾fjdamdhka tu
wk;=r u.yrjd .ekSug meñKs,slreg yelshdj ;snqko j.W;a;rlref.a fiajlhkaf.a
iqmßlaIdldÍ;ajh ms<sn| j úYajdih ;eîug meñKs,slreg ysñlu ;snQ nj ;SrKh úh'
03& yÈis wjia:d ms<sn| uQ,O¾uh ^ Doctrine of sudden Emergency &
j.W;a;rlref.a fkdie,ls,a, ksid meñKs,slre yÈis ;SrK .ekSfï wjia:djlg uqyqK ÿka úg
meñKs,slre .kq ,enqfõ jvd;au wk;=reodhl ;SrKh jqj;a ta ms<sn|j j.W;a;rlre j.lsj hq;=
h'
frdau kS;sh iy RDL hgf;a isÿ jQ ydksh fldmuK iq¨ tlla jqj;a ydksfha fya;=j ms<sn| jro
th isÿl< md¾Yajh fj;g mj;shs' fuu Í;sh zish,a, fyda lsisjla ke; Í;sh Z hkqfjka ckm%sh
j jHjydr fõ' ( All or nothing & bx.%Sis kS;sh hgf;a o fuu Í;sh wkq.ukh lrhs'
Butterfield v. Farester kvqfõ § j.W;a;rlre úiska mdr yryd ;nd ;snqKq lKqjl meñKs,slref.a
wYajhd yemqks' fuu wk;=f¾§ meñKs,slre úisù f.dia Tyqg ;=jd, isÿúh' meñKs,slre w,dN
b,a,d kvq mjrk ,o uq;a wêlrKh ;SrKh lf,a meñKs,slre wêl fjs.fhka hdu ;=jd, isÿùSug
fya;= jQ nj;a tuksid Tyqg w,dN whlr .ekSug ysñlula fkdue;s nj;ah '
bx.%Sis kS;sh u.ska ‘all or nothing’ Í;sh ‘last opportunity rule’ fyj;a ‘wjidk wjia:d Í;shZ u.ska
iquglr we;' tu Í;sfhka woyia jkafka fomd¾Yjhu fkdie,ls,su;a ù we;s wjia:djl§ tla
md¾Yjhl fkdie,ls,a, ksid we;s jQ m%;sM,h u. yerùug wjidk wjia:dj jQ md¾Yajh muKla
j.lsjhq;= njhs' Devis v. Mann kvqfõ ;SrKh meyeÈ,s lrñka Salmond úiska fuu Í;sh
ks¾udKh lrk ,§' kvqfõ meñKs,slre ;u nQrejdf.a bÈß mdohg ú,x.= oud tu nQrejdj
uydud¾.fha ksoe,af,a hjk ,§' ;u wYaj r:fhka meñKs j.W;a;rlre tu nQrejdj ymamdf.k
.sfhah' j.W;a;rlre ;u wYaj r:h meoùfï § ;sìh hq;= jQ wjOdkfhka l%shd lf,a kï Tyqg tu
wk;=r j,lajd .ekSug yelshdj ;snqfkah hk lreK u; j.W;a;rlre j.lsjhq;= nj ;SrKh
lrk ,§'
British Colombia Electric Railway company v. Loach ys§ wjidk wjia:d Í;sh ms<sn| j iqug
lsÍula yÿkajd fok ,§' fuu ;SrKh wkqj iuyr wjia:d j,§ wjidk Í;sh l,ams;j wjidkh
wdfrdamKh flf¾' tu wjia:d kï "
1' hï ;eke;a;l= ;u fkdie,ls,su;a l%shdfõ§ wjidk wjia:d Í;sh m%fhdackhg .ekSug

wfmdfydi;a jk wjia:djl§'
Wod (- fodaI iys; ;sßx. j,ska hq;a fudag¾ r:hla ßÿfrl= úiska mojk úg'
2' wk;=rl tla md¾Yajhla wk;=reodhl nj ms<sn| fkdoekqj;a jk úg iy wfkla md¾Yjh;a

tu fkdoekqj;aNdjh ms<sn|j okakd úg iy tu fkdoekqj;alfï m%;sM,h u.yrjd .ekSug
idOdrK wjOdkhla fhduq fkdlrk úg'
Wod (- tla ßhÿfrla wfkla ßhÿrd ksis f,i ßh Odjkh fkdlrk nj okakd úfgl ßh
wk;=rla j,lajd .ekSug .;hq;= iEu idOdrK mshjrla .ekSu uq,ska lS oekqu iys;
ßhÿrdf.a hq;=lu fõ'
f;jk md¾Yajhl fkdie,ls,su;a njms<sn| úuiSfï§ idudkH Í;sh jkafka f;jk md¾Yajhla
úiska lrk ,o fkdie,ls,su;a l%shdjlg j.W;a;rlreg iydhl fkdie,ls,a, hk ú;a;sjdplh
bÈßm;a l< fkdyels njhs' fuhg we;s jH;sf¾Ç wjia:dj jkafka f;jk md¾Yjhl
fkdie,ls,su;a nj meñKs,slre fj; mejßh yels ùuhs' ta whqßka fkdie,ls,su;a nj fjk;a
wfhl= fj; wdfrdamKh l, yelafla úfYaI wjia:dj,§ muKs' kS;sh u.ska hï mqoa.,fhl=f.a
jroldÍ l%shdjkag fjk;a md¾Yajhlg j.lSu mjrd we;akï tjeks wjia:dj,§
fkdie,ls,su;aNdjhgo j.lSug tu md¾Yjhg isÿfõ'
Wod (- fiajH fiajl iïnkaOh
hï fiajlhl= w;ska ish fiajfha fh§ isáh úg§ isÿjk iydhl fkdie,ls,a, fmdÿ kS;sh hgf;a
fukau Appointment of Damages Act hgf;a o Tyqf.a fiajdfhdaclhd fj; mejßh yel'
Law of Property
2018 OCTOBER
7. (i) WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
SURVEYOR TO COURT IN TERMS OF SECTION 18(1) (a) OF THE PARTITION LAW, NO. 21 OF 1977?
I. A report in duplicate, substantially in the form set out in the second schedule to this Law, verified
by affidavit stating Dates on which notice of survey was issued to parties.
II. The nature of the land surveyed and of any buildings, walls, trees, plantations, fences and other
improvements thereon.
III. Whether or not in his opinion the land surveyed by him, is substantially the same as the land
sought to be partitioned as described in the schedule to the plaint.
IV. The parties to the action who were present at the survey, the names and addresses of any person
who at the time of survey preferred any claims and nature of such claim.
V. Persons, if any who pointed out the land to be surveyed.

VI. The result of his investigation of any particular fact or matter specially referred to in the terms of
his commission.
VII. The existing means of access to the land from the nearest public road.
VIII. Any fact, matter or circumstances relating to his survey or to the land survey which in his opinion,
may be necessary for or to prove of assistant in the adjudications of the Partition Act.
(II) WHAT ARE THE DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE TENDERED TO COURT WITH THE DECLARATION OF THE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12(2) OF THE PARTITION LAW NO. 21 OF 1977?
a) If the declaration discloses any person not mentioned in the plaint as a party, but who should
made as a party under Sec. 5, an amendment Plaint (It shall be deemed to be the plaint for all
purposes) including them as party if there are any new parties being added as a result of searching
folios by the instructing attorney.
b) Such number of summons equivalent to the number of defendants according to the form inn
second schedule, containing name and address of the defendants on whom, the summons is to
be served.
c) If the language of any Defendant is not the language of the court, the translation of summons in
that language.
d) Number of copies of the plaint equivalent to the number of defendants with translation if
required.
e) A copy of the plaint certified by the registered attorney as a true copy, attached to the commission
issued to the surveyor who is to make the preliminary survey of the land.
f) As many copies of the notice with translation if required to be displayed in the land in the form
set out in second schedule.
g) Such number of copies of such notice referred above to be sent to the Grama Seva Niladhari or
Niladhari within whose area the land is situated.
h) A precept to the Fiscal substantially in the form set out in the 2nd schedule to this law.
2018 APRIL
8. EXPLAIN THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF
a) Ramachandran and Another v. Hatton National Bank (2006 – 1 SLR-393)
The Supreme Court held that the Recovery of Loan by Bank (Special Provision) Act, No. 4 of 1990,
applicable to Loans granted for the economic developments of Sri Lanka is a departure from the normal
law. Also, the Supreme Court in this case held that when the Board of Directors adopts a resolution, it
decides its own case against a person who has adverse interest against the Bank. Such a radical step which
will affect the property rights of the customer must be taken with caution and should not be used in an
oppressive manner. Natural Justice requires that the borrower is given sufficient notice of his default and
of impending resolution. In this regard, a Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court gave a restrictive
interpretation to the words “Borrower” and held that the provisions of the Recovery by Loans by Banks
(Special Provisions) Act, No.4 of 1990 will not apply in respect of a mortgage given by a guarantor or any
person other than a borrower to whom a loan has been granted by a Bank for the economic development
of Sri Lanka (the majority decision).
*A five Bench of the SC decided that provisions of the Act, No.4 of 1990 for parate execution will not apply
for third party mortgages.
b) Hatton National Bank v. Jayawardana (2007-1 SLR-181)
The case distinguished Ramachandran v. HNB having regard to the benefit derived by the mortgagor and
the courts disregard the corporate veil of the borrower and sought to identify the actual beneficiary of
loan, who in those cases, turned out to be the mortgagor. Also, it was held that when a Bank sold to itself
a property in public auction in parate execution proceedings under the Debt Recovery of Loans by Banks
(Special Provisions) No. 4 of 1990 (when there was no bidder at the auction) such sale cannot be
challenged on the basis of principle of “laesio enormis” as the actual sale takes place when the Bank
resells it as required by Section 19 of the said Act.
Thus, in a nutshell the Supreme Court decided that the third party mortgages will not include the
mortgages will not include the mortgaged property of Directors where the borrower is a company.
දේපල නීතිය(2018-ඔකදතෝබර්)
A.(01).පළමු විකුණම ද ෝ විකුණනුම් එකඟතාවයට එළඹි දින සිට මාස 18 ක ඇතුළත ද ෝ

ද ාඩනැගිල්ල ඉදි කළ දින සිට මාස 3 ක ඇතුළත ද ෝ දම් දෙදකන් පළමුව එළදෙන
දිනය ආකාරයට දේ.
(2). 03(2)ආ ව න්තිදේ ෙකවා ඇති පරිදි ද ාඩනැගිල්ල ඉදිකිරීමට දපර විකිණීමක
සිදුවුවද ාත්,ද ාඩනැගිල්ල ඉදි කළ දිනදේ සිට මාස 6 ක ඇතුළත ලියාපදිිංචි කළ යුතුයි.
B. අත් පත් කර ැනීදම් නිලධාරියා විසින් ,
නියම කරනු ලැබූ දිනදයහි,දේලාදවහි ස ස්ථානදේදී,
*ඉඩදමහි දවදළඳදපාළ අ ය ද ෝ එම ඉඩම මතින් පරවශතා අයිතිය පිළිබඳ
*ෙැන්ීම් මගින් ඉඩදෙනු ලැබූ කාලය ඇතුළත ෙන්වනු ලැබූ වන්දි ඉල්ීම
*වන්දි ඉල්ලන තැනැත්තාදේ පිළිදවළින් වූ සම්බන්ධතාව
*17 වන ව න්තිය යටදත් තීරණයක කිරීම සඳ ා විමර්ශනයට අවශය වන යම්

කරුණක පිළිබඳ විභා පැවැත්විය යුතුයි.
C.45(1) ව න්තිය*
(1)අමාතයවරයා පත්කරනු ලබන සභාපතිවරදයක
(2)අමාතයවරයා පත්කරනු ලබන දසසු සාමාජිකයන් 5 ස් දෙදනක
*ඉඩම් පරිපාලනදේ,මැනීදම් ද ෝ නීතිය පිළිබඳ පළපුරුේෙක ඇති දෙදෙදනක
*මුෙල් ඇමති විසින් නම් කළ නාමිකදයකු
*වැවිලි කර්මාන්ත අමාතයවරයා විසින් නම් කරනු ලැබූ නාමිකදයකු
*ඉඩම් සම්පාෙක අමාතයවරයා විසින් නම් කරනු ලැබූ නාමිකදයකු .......

(දමාවුන් රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරින් විය යුතුයි)
(3)නිල බලදයන් පත්වන තිදෙදනක
*ඉඩම් දකාමසාරිස්
*ද ාවි ජ්‍න දස්වා දකාමසාරිස්
*කෘෂිකර්ම අධකෂක
D.*1977 අිංක 21 ෙරණ දබදුම් නඩු පනත යටදත් පවරනු ලබන දබදුම් නඩු(sec 06)
* උකස් පනත යටදත් පවරනු ලබන නඩු(sec 08)

*2015 අිංක 05 ෙරණ අවලිංගු කළ දනා ැකි තැගි ඔප්පපු බලවත් අකෘතඥතාවය
පෙනම් කරද න අවලිංගු කිරීදම් පනත යටදත් පවරන නඩු (sec 04)
7(a)
1. මැනිම් පිළිබඳ ෙැන්ීම පාර්ශව කරැවන්ට නිකුත් කළ දිනය.
2. මනින ලෙ ඉඩදම් ස්වභවය ස එම ඉඩදම් ඇති ද ාඩනැගිලි වල, තාප්පපවල, ලිිං වල,
ස්වල, වැවිලි වල , වැටවල් වල ස දවනත් වැඩි දියුණු කිරීම් වල ස්වභවය.
3. ඔහු විසින් මනින ලෙ ඉඩම ඔහුදේ මතයට අනුව දබො දවන් කිරීමට ඇති ඉඩම
වශදයන් පැමිණිල්දල් විස්තර කර ඇති ඉඩම්ෙ නැේෙ යන ව
4. මැනිම සිදු කරන අවස්ථාදවදි පැමිණ සිටි පාර්ශවික කරැවන්දේ නම් ා ලිපිනයන්ෙ,
මැනිදම්දි යම් හිමි කමක පැ තැනැත්තකුදේ නම්,ලිපින ා හිමිකම් පැදම් ස්වභාවය.
5. ඉඩම දප්පනවා දුන් තැනැත්තාදේ/ තැනැත්තන්දේ නම්
6. කිට්ටුම ප්‍රසිේධ මාර් දේ සිට එහි ඉඩමට ඇතුළු විය ැකි ෙැනට පවත්නා මාර් ය.
7. දබදුම් නඩුව විනිශ්චය කිරීදම්දි අවශය විය ැකි යැයි නැතද ාත් ආධාර විය ැකි යැයි
ඔහු අෙ ස් කලා වු මනින ලෙ ඉඩමට සම්බන්ධ වුෙ දවනත් ඕනැම කරුණක.
(b) 1. විත්ති කරුවන් සිංඛ්‍යාවට සමාන සිතාසි සිංඛ්‍යාවක
2. අධිකරණදේ භාෂාව විත්තිකරුදේ භාෂාව දනාවන්දන් නම් පරිවර්තන කරන ලෙ

සිතාසියක
3. විත්තිකරුවන් ණනට සමාන පැමිණිල්දල් නඩු පිටපත් සිංඛ්‍යාවක පරිවර්තනයන්ෙ

සමඟ
4. මුල් මැනිම සිදු කිරීමට නම් කරනලෙ මිනුම් කරු දවත යැීම සඳ ා ස තික කරන ලෙ
පැමිණිල්දල් පිටපතක
5. ඉඩදම් ප්‍රෙර්ශනය කිරීම සඳ ා ෙැන්ීම් පත්‍රිකාවක අවශය නම පරිවර්තනයකෙ සමඟ
6. ග්‍රාම නිලධාරී කාර්යාලදේ ප්‍රෙර්ශනය කිරීම සඳ ා ග්‍රාම නිලධාරීවරයාට ෙැන්ීම්

පත්‍රිකාවක
7. ඉඩදම් ප්‍රෙර්ශනයට ා අණදබර ැසීම සඳ ා පිස්කල්වරයාට නිදයා් පත්‍රයක ද ෝ

ආඥාපත්‍රයක
8. 12(1) ව න්තියට අනුව පැමිණිල්දල් නීතිඥවරයා ද ෝ පැමිණිලිකරු විසින් ඉඩම්

ලියාපදිිංචි කාර්යාල දසෝදිසිදේන් පසු පාර්ශවයන් එකතු විය යුතු නම් පැමිණිල්දල්
සිංදශෝධනය.
Property 2
w&' tlÕ fjñ' wdrjq,lska f;drj ck;djg uqyqÿ fjr< Ndú;d lsÍfï whs;sh kvq ;Skaÿ
.Kkdjlska ms<sf.k we;'
1' Rowel Mudliyar v. Peiris (1 NLR 81)

fuys § wêlrKh marldY lrk ,oafoa uqyqÿ fjrf<a fyda Bg hdno NQñfha oe,a t<Sug n,m;ar
,nd§u lsÍgfha lghq;a;la nj;a n,m;arhlska f;drj th isÿ lsÍu úh fkdyels nj;a h '
2' Phoro v. Stephen (1917 AD 1)

fuu kvqfõ § frdau ,kafoais kS;h s hgf;a uqyqÿ fjrf<a iSudj ms<sn|j w¾:l:kh lr we;'
widudkah úfYaI .x j;=r iys; ld,"idudkah YS; l=Kdgq iD;=j,§ uqyqo <Õdjk yels Wmßu ÿr
marudKh f;la uqyqÿ fjrf<a udhsï jk nj fuys§ i|yka úh'
3' Fernando v. Kalutara Police ^45 NLR 49&

fuys§ wêlrKh marldY lf<a ,xldfõ iS; iD;=jla fkdue;s neúka ,xldfõ kï ksß;È. fudaiï
iufha§ uqyqo <Õdjk ÿr marudKh f;la uqyqÿ fjr< udhsï jk njhs'
^ 6marks &
wd&' 1' iajdNdúl M, øjHuh ksYap, foam,la f,iska i,lkq ,nk w;r th iajdNdúl ksIamdok
fõ'
kso ( ,S" ;Kfld<
Y%u M, øjHuh pxp, foam<la f,iska i,lkq ,nk w;r ñksia W;aidyfhka yd Y%ufhka
f.dvkef.a'
kso ( nv bßÕ=" udxY fnda.
2' Lee Hedges & Co. v. James Seville [(1886) 8 SCC 21]
by; kvqfõ § Burnside CJ mjid isáfha ;Kfld< oej fyda m<;=re .ia jeks oE lD;suj j.d
l,o tajd iajdNdúl f,i mfiys j¾Okh fõ kï iy fmdÿ kS;sh hgf;a tajd mfiys fldgila
f,i i,lkafka kï tajd iajNdúl M, f,i;a"
biSu" wiajkq lemSu" me, isgqùu iy M, /ia lsÍu jeks ñksia Y%ufhka ksYamdokh jk øjH Y% u
M, f,i;a y÷kd .kakd njhs'
;j ÿrg;a Tyq m%ldY lr isáfha iajNdúl M, iy Y%u M, w;r fjki fidhd .ekSug jvd;a
meyeÈ,s iy wNsu;dkqidÍ fkdjk mÍlaIdjla ;sfí kï jvd;a WÑ; jk njhs'
Dias J. m%ldY lr isáfha nv bßÕ=" OdkH îc jeks OdkH j¾.j, iajNdjh yd ,laIK ms<sn|j
ie,lSfï § Y%u M, yd iajNdúl M, w;r mj;sk fjki wjfndaO lr.; yels njhs' fujeks
OdkH j¾. fmdfydr fh§u" j,a fk<Su" c,h oeóu jeks ñksia Y%uh u; r|d mj;sk fyhska tajd
Y%u M, f,i y÷kd .kS' fuu Ydl yd §¾> ld,Sk j jefvk l,a mj;akd .ia w;r w;s úYd,
fjkila mj;sk nj;a Tyq m%ldY lf<ah'
^ 4 marks &
we&' Brodice v. Attorney General (7 NLR 81)
fuu kvqfõ § hï jia;j = l úYd,;ajh fyda fN!;sl iïnkaO;djh u; iúlr we;s ;Sj%;djh
wkqj th iú lsÍula o keoao hkak i,ld n,k ,§'
kvqfjys lreKq fufia h' rcfha ksfhdað;hl= ud¾.fhka bvula yd f.dvke.s,a,la rch fj;
ñ,§ .kakd ,§' fuu f.dvkeÕs,af,ys fnda,aÜ weK iy bial=remamq weK fhdod f.k ia:sr f,i
iú lrkq ,enQ .Dy WmlrK" ljqkagrh" j;=r gexls" úÿ,s iSkq kdk fíiï iy jeisls,s NdKav
wdÈ øjH úh' ñ,§ .ekSu isÿ ù ál Èklg miq f.dvke.s,af,ys whs;slre úiska tys jQ iúlsÍï
;ud i;= úh hq;= njg fpdaokd lrk ,§' by; i|yka lrk ,o jia;k + af.a iajNdjh yd tajd iú
lr we;s iú lr we;s ;Sj%;dj u; tajd iú lsÍula njg m;aj we;s fyhska tu øjHuh ksYap,
foam, f.dvke.s,a,;a iu.u rchg ysñjk nj fuys§ ;SrKh úh'
wE&' Tissera v. Tissera (42 NLR 60)
hï øjHuh pxp, foam<la iú lsÍula njg m;aj ;sfío keoao hkak fidhd ne,Sfï§ i,ld ne,sh
hq;= mÍlaIK ;=kla Oliver v. Haarhof kvqfõ § fmkajd fok ,§ ' tajd kï"
a) wod, jia;=fõ iajNdjh

b) wod< jia;=j iú lr we;s iajNdjh
c) iú lrkq ,nk ;eke;a;df.a fÉ;kdj
Tissera v. Tissera kvqfõ § wod< jia;=j iú l< ;eke;a;df.a fÉ;kdj wkqj iú lsÍula jkafka
o keoao hkak idlÉPd úh' fuh;a hï pxp, foam<la iú lsÍula njg m;aj ;sfí o hkak fidhd
ne,Su i|yd fhdod.kq ,nk w;sYh jeo.;a idOlhla jk w;r wod< iúlsÍu .,jkakg .shfyd;a
foam, j,g fyda .,jkakdg ydkshla ùug bvlvla we;aoehs fidhd ne,sh hq;= h' by; kvqfõ §
kvqfõ § yjq,a jHdmdrhla j mej;s meje;s fldyq fuda, fnda,aÜ weK yd uqßÉÑ weK fhdod iú
lr ;snqKs' tla yjq,alrefjl= fuu fuda, iy bvu úlsKQ w;r m%Yak.; lreK jQfha ñ,§ .;a
;eke;a;dg iúlr ;snQ fudf,a ysñlu ,efí o keoao hkakhs' fldyq fuda, pxp, jia;=jla jQ
neúka th .,jd bj;a lsÍug ysñlula we;s njg meñKs,a, m%ldY l<o uQ, iú l< ;eke;a;d
th ia:srju ;eîug yeÍfï fÉ;kdfjka iúlr we;s ksid wod, fldyq fuda, ksYap, foam,la
njg m;aj we;s nj mjik ,§'
Property 2… 2018 April No.02.
úl=Kd Ndr§fuka whs;sh mejÍu i|yd wjYH wx. meyeÈ,s lrkak'
*qÜ g wkqj Ndr§ula hkq tla w;lska ;j;a w;lg §uhs' tkï ika;lh udre lsÍuhs' fuu kS;sh
ms<s.;a ysñldÍ;ajh we;slr .kakd l%uhls'
j,x.= úl=Kd Ndr§ula i|yd ;Dma; l< hq;= fldkafoais myla ,S úiska olajd we;' ^ Prof' Lee -
Introduction to Roman Dutch Law &
fuu ;;a;ajhka 5 tljr Woa.; jqjfyd;a ñi úl=Kd Ndr §ula u.ska ysñldÍ;ajh mejÍfï
l%shdjla isÿ fkdfõ' isÿjkafka ika;lh mejÍula muKs'
^01& foamf<ys ysñldß;ajh mejreï,dNshd g mejÍug mejreïlre ;=< wNsm%dhla ;sìh hq;=hs'
fuu wjYH;djh iïnkaOfhka ol=Kq wm%sldkq wêlrKh wjOdkh fhduqlr we;'
Commissioner of Customs and Exercise V. Randle Brothers and Hudson Ltd.

fuu kvqfõ § i|yka lrk ,oafoa md¾Yjlrejka whs;sh mejÍug leu;s iy Ndr §fï m%:sM,hla
f,i ysñldÍ;ajh udre jk nj woyia lrhs kï túg Tjqka i;=j wjYH lrk fÉ;kdj mj;sk
w;r ysñldr;ajh Ndr §u u.ska yqjudre jkq ,nhs'
flfia kuq;a ysñldÍ;ajh fyda udreùu i|yd fuu fÉ;kdj iu. ne÷Kq Ndr §u muKla
m%udKj;a fkdjk nj;a Bg wu;rj hï y÷kd.; yels wdldrhl .súiqula mej;sh hq;= njg o
;¾lhla f.dv ke.S we;' md¾Yjhka w;r we;s wNsm%dh úúO l%u uÕska Tmamq l< hq;=hs' hï
ysñlula yqjudre lsÍug fomd¾Yjh w;r tlÕ;djhla ;sfíkï .súiqu YqkH n, rys; jqjo lï
ke;'
M.C.C. Bazar v. Haris and Tones (pvt) Ltd

Voet mjik mßÈ " Habilis Cause $ idodrk fya;=j yqjudre lsÍfï fÉ;kdj oeä iy
Wjukdfjkau isÿ l< tlla úh hq;=hs'
th .súiqï.; ne£ï j,ska úhqla; úh hq;=h' tneúka ysñldÍ;ajh yqjudre lsÍfï yd w;alr .ekSfï
wNsm%dh ;yjqre lrk idlaIsh w;sYh jeo.;a fõ'
^02& foam, neyer lsÍu i|yd mejreïlre g ffk;sl Ylakq;djhla ;sìh hq;=hs'
nd,jhialrejkag$ isys úl, ;eke;a;kag$ kS;sfhka wYlakq;djhlg ,la fldg we;s whg foam,
neyer l< fkdyel' Khysñhkag jxpd isÿlsÍu i|yd foam, neyer lsÍfï§ Tyq w.;shg m;aj
we;akï Khlreg foam, neyer lsÍfï Ylakq;djh ke;'
^03& mjrk foam, úl=Kd Ndr§fuka ffk;slj neyer l< yels foam,la úh hq;=hs'
idudkHfhka jdKsc lghq;= i|yd fhdod fkd.kakd foam, ^ Res extra commercium & yd wo%jHuh
foam, ^Res Incorporales& ffk;slj neyer l< fkdyels foam, f,i RDL ys i,lhs'
Mitchel v. Fernando
fuys§ olajd we;af;a wo%jHj;a foam, whs;sh fN!;slj Ndr §u isÿ l< fkdyels nj i;Hhla
njhs' kuq;a tfia u meyeÈ,s lreKla jkafka whs;sh mjrd §u u.ska ika;lh ,ndÈh yels njhs'
,xldfõ kS;sho fï nj ^foam< mjrd .; yels nj& olajhs'
Wod(- mrjYH;djh wo%jHuh whs;h

s la jqjo" th mejßh yels ksYap, foam,la f,i ld,djfrdaë
wd{d mkf;a olajhs'
^04& mejÍfï m%;sM,hla f,i mejreï,dNshd g foamf,a ysñlre ùfï fÉ;kdjla yd tfia ysñlre
ùfï ffk;sl Ylakq;djhla ;sìh hq;=hs'
úksYaÑ; kvq ;Skaÿ j,§ fuu wjYH;djh taldldr j u b,a,d isg we;s wdldrhla oelsh yel'
Weeks v. Amalgamated Agencies Ltd

fuu ol=Kq wm%sldkq kvqfõ § fjf<| .súiqula iïnkaOfhka i,ld n,k ,§' tys§ úl=Kk ,o
foamf<ys ysñldÍ;ajh .ekqïlreg yqjudre ùug wjYH fldkafoais f,i olajd we;af;a foam, Ndr
§ug wu;rj úl=Kï q lre úiska tu foam, mejÍfï woyila iy th ñ, § .kakd ,o ;eke;a;d
tu foam, whs;slre ùfï wNsm%dhla ;sîu ñi úl=Kqï .súiqula we;slr .ekSu fkdfõ'
Green Sheilds V. Chiholm

fuys§ olajd we;af;a yqÿ Ndr§ula muKla m%udKj;a fkdjk w;r fomd¾Yjfha is;aj,
tlÕ;ajhla isÿúh hq;= njhs'
Voet i|yka lr we;s mßÈ mejreïlre g fukau ejreï,dNshd g o wod< mejÍu iïnkaOfhka
wNsm%dhla iy tlÕ;ajhla mej;sh hq;= njhs'
^05& mejreïlre foamf<ys ysñlre úh hq;=hs' ke;skï ysñlref.a wêldßh ,;a Tyqf.a fiajlfhl=
fyda ksfhdað;hl= úh hq;=hs'
idudkH isoaOdka;h jkafka hï foam,la mjrk úg tu foamf,a whs;l

s re tu mjrkq ,nk
mqoa.,hd úh hq;= njhs'
fuhg tfrysj *qÜ úiska t<solajk ,o Exceptio Rei Venditae Et Traditae ^ úl=Kd Ndr§fï
jH;sf¾lh & kï RDL kS;s jH;sf¾lhla mj;S'
úl=Kk wjia:dfõ ysñlu fkd;snqKo fodaI iy.; jqjo miqj úl=Kïq lre g ksrjq,a ysñlula
,nk foam< ñ,§ .;a ;eke;a;dg iy Tyqf.ka mej; tkakkag tu ysñlu ,nd .; yel' ks h;
jYfhkau ysñlu ,efnkafka úl=Kk ;eke;a;dg ysñlu ,efnk wjia:dfõ isgh'
fï iïnkaOfhka"
Kadiravelu Pulle v. Pina

Sela Hamy v. Raphael
De Silva v. Shaik Ali
Rajapaksha v. Fernando
hk kvq lr jeo.;a fõ '
Law of Trust
2018 October ) Question no. 07

Tmamqfõ i|yka fkdjk úg Ndrhla ia:dms; lsÍu i|yd jdÑl idlaIs wdfõYH lr.; fkdyels
w;r" wkqñ; Ndrhl meje;au ia:dms; lsÍu i|yd mj;sk wjia:dkq.; lreKq" tlS lreKq
úYajdikSh jkafka kï i,ld n,kq ,eîu i|yd Ndr wd{d mkf;a 83 jk j.ka;sh u.ska wjir
,nd fokq ,nk nj fuu wêlrKhg fmkS hhs'" j¾Kl=,iQßhf.a tÈßj fodka úu,a yßiapkao%
.=K;s,l kvqfõ§ YsrdKs ;s,lj¾Ok úksiqre;=ñh'kS;u s h úêúOdk iy úksYaÑ; kvq ;Skaÿ
wdY%fhka wkqu; Ndrhla ia:dms; lsÍu i|yd jdÑl idlaIs j, wdfõYH;dj idlÉPd lrkak'
wkqñ; Ndrhla hkq ixia:dmklref.a m%ldYs; fyda .uHudk l%shdj,ska ;efkkakla fkdj kS;sh
l%shd;aul ùfï § wod< ùulska fyda kS;h
s ú.%y lsÍfï§ we;súh yels Ndrhls' ta wkqj hï
.kqfokqjla yd wod, md¾Yjhkaf.a" fÉ;kdj" ms<sn|j fkdi,ld hqla;h s yd idOdrK;ajh bgq
lsÍu i|yd wêlrKh úiska tu .kqfokqj u; we;s lrkq ,nk Ndr wkqñ; Ndr fõ'
10 mßÉfþoh fï hg;g wod< fõ'
82 j.ka;sh
Ndrhl iajrEmh .;a ^fuys ñka u;= wkqñ; Ndrhla hkqfjka i|yka flfrk& ne£ula my;
oelafjk wjia:djka j, § we;s fõ'
83 j.ka;sh
foam<l whs;slre th mjrd fyda ßla:jrKh fldg blaì;s tys w¾:,dNS m%;s,dN neyer lsÍug
Tyq woyia l< nj wdkqYx.sl lreKq j,g wkql+,j idOdrK f,i fkdyefÕk wjia:djl
mejreï,dNS úiska fyda f;ia;fïka;= odhdo ,dNS úiska" whs;slref.a fyda Tyqf.a ffk;sl
ksfhdað;hdf.a w¾:,dNh msKsi ta foam, oeßh hq;=h'
wkqñ; Ndrhla i|yd Ndr wd{d mkf;a 5^1& " 5^2& hgf;a tk Wmpdr wkq.ukh lsÍula tkï
fkd;dßiajrhl= úiska ,shd w;aika lsÍula wjYH fkdfõ'
úfÊ;s,l ta' rKisxy " fcdx.d ta' kkaÿjd
fujd 2 mßÉfþoh ;=< we;s m%;smdok wkq.ukh lr we;s kuq;a n¾kdfoka t' ymqwdrÉÑ kvqfõ
§ oelajQfha óg jxpd je<elaùfï wd{d mkf;a fojk j.ka;h
s wod< fkdjk njhs'
mejreïlre fj; h<s foam< mjrd §u iïnkaOj jdÑl iïuq;shlg hg;aj hï foam,la mjrd we;s
úg fï j.ka;hs hgf;a Ndrhla ygf.k we;s njg ;¾l l< yel'
hï md¾Yjhla úiska tjeks Ndrhla wêlrKh yuqfõ ia:dms; lrjd .ekSug woyia lrkafka kï"
wod< foam< mejÍu iu. w¾:,dNS whs;sh mejÍug woyia fkdl< nj wdkqYx.sl lreKq $wdY%s;
lreKq $wjia:d.; lreKq u.ska Tmamq l< hq;= fõ'
fuu wdkqYx.sl lreKq isoaêuh lreKq wkqj fjkia jk neúka wod< kvqfõ isoaêh u; r|d mj;S'
83 j.ka;shg wkqj foam,la mjrd fyda ßla:jrKh fldg we;s úg w¾:,dNS m%;s,dNh neyer fldg
we;s njg wkqudk l< fkdyels wjia:djkays§ mejreï,dNshd fyda odhdo,dNshd foamf<ys Ndrlre
fõ'
mqoa.,hl= ;udg mlaIj fkd;dßia mejÍula we;s úg 83 j.ka;sh wod<;ajh Tmamq lsÍfï oeä
j.lSu mejreïlre u; megfõ' fuys§ Tyq úiska w¾:,dNS ysñlu mjrd §ug wfmalaId fkdl<
nj Tmamq lsÍu wksjd¾h fõ' fujeks wjia:djl mejreï,dNshd úiska bÈßm;a l< yels ;¾lh
jkafka ,sÅ; j we;s úl=Kqïlrh fjkia lsÍug idlaIs wd{d mkf;a 91 yd 92 j.ka;s wkqj ,sÅ;
idlaIs w;HjYH njhs'
idlaIs wd{d mkf;a 91 j.ka;sh iu. lsjhq;= 92 j.ka;sfha i|yka mßÈ "
,sÅ;j we;s hï .súiqul fldkafoais lsisÿ jdÑl tlÕ;ajhla u.ska fjkia lsÍug" tl;= lsÍug
fyda ixfYdaOkh lsÍug fkdyelsh'
fujeks ;¾lhla mejreï,dNshdf.a md¾Yjfhka bÈßm;a l<fyd;a Bg m%;sW;a;r f,i
mejreïlreg tu idlaIs wd{d mkf;au 92 j.ka;f
s ha m<uq w;=re úOdkh wod, lr.; yel'
thg wkqj"
tkuq;a hï ,sÅ; .súiqula ilia lsÍfï§ hï jxpdjla fyda ìh .ekaùula isÿ ù we;akï f,aLkfha
hï lreKla fjkia lr oelaùu msKsi jdÑl idlaIs jqjo bÈßm;a l< yelsh'
fuu.ska meyeÈ,s jkqfha jdÑl idlaIs Wmfhda.S lrf.k wkqñ; Ndr f.dvke.S we;s nj h'
j,a,swïud t' wíÿ,a uðâ
fuys§ m%;sIaGdjla u; foam,la ;u È<s÷lu ksid ú;a;slreg mjrk ,§' tys jdÑl fmdfrdkaÿjla
muKla úh' meñKs,slref.a jHdmdr yd foam< Tyq l<ukdlrKh lrk nj;a meñKs,slre ;snQ
Kh bka wh úh hq;= uqo,ska Tyq mshjd .kakd nj;a b;sß foam, kej; Tyqg mjrk nj;a oelaùh'
^jdÑlj&' miqj ú;a;slre fuu m%ldY m%;slafIam lr tajd Tmamqfõ ke;s nj oelaùh' meñKs,slre
83 hgf;a Ndrhla jk nj oelajQ w;r ú;a;slre tajd m%;slafIam lr 91$92 j.ka;sj,g wkqj iEu
fmdfrdkaÿjla u ,sÅ; úh hq;= nj oelaùh' wêlrKh mejiqfõ tu j.ka;s tfia oelajQjo 92 w;=re
úOdkhg wkqj jxpdjlg by; j.ka;s wod, lr .; fkdyels njh'
ó,Õg bÈßm;a l< yels ;¾lh jkqfha wkqñ; Ndrh Ndr wd{d mkf;a 5^1& yd 5^2& j.ka;s j,g
mgyeks nj h'
ksYap, foam, 5^1& yd pxp, foam, 5^2& hgf;a Ndrhla kS;Hdhdkql+, ùug wka;su leu;s m;%h
fyda f;ia;fïka;= fkdjk ,shú,a, jxpd je<elaùfï wd{d mkf;a fojk j.ka;shg wkql+, úh
hq;=h'
kuq;a 5 ^3&j.ka;sfha olajkqfha" 5^1& fyda 5^2& Wm j.ka;sj, wvx.= Í;s fhdod.ksñka hful=
jxpdjla lsÍug W;aidy .kakd úgl§ tlS Í;s wod, lr.; fkdyels njhs'
uq;a;ïud t' ;Hd.rdcd
ikafidaks J' m%ldY lr we;af;a foam, mejÍu l< wjia:dfõ§ md¾Yjlrejkag ;snQ fÉ;kdj b;d
jeo.;a nj;a fkd;dßia Tmamqfõ ;snQ lreKq ;SrKd;aul fkdjk nj;ah' ta wkqj wod< foamf<a
w¾:,dNh mejÍug woyila mejreïlre ;=< fkdjQ nj Tmamq lsÍug jdÑl idlaIs fhdod .; yels
nj;a olajk ,§'
fuu kvqfõ isoaêuh lreKq jQfha msfhl= fkdfn¥ bvulska fldgila ish mq;= fj; ;Hd. lrk
,§' nexl= wemhlg ;eîug kej; tu bvu wjYH jQ neúka Wli fírE úg kej; mjrk f,ig
jQ jdÑl fmdfrdkaÿjla u; foam, kej; mshdg ;E.s lrk ,§' wod, foam, ;Hd. lsÍug m%:u
ish wka;su leu;s m;%fha fmd,aulaldßh f,i ìß| m;alrñka ñh .sfhah' mq;d ;¾l lf<a ;u
foam, w¾:,dNh mejÍug woyia fkdl< nj;a" Wli fírE miq kej; ,nd§ug jdÑl
fmdfrdkaÿjla jQ neúka 83 j.ka;sh hgf;a mshdf.a fmda,aulaldßh ;ud fjkqfjka tu foam,
Ndrhla fia ork njhs' wêlrKh úiska jdÑl idlaIs fufyhùug wjia:dj ÿka w;r mq;df.a
;¾lh ms<s.kakd ,§'
Bernedette Valangenberg v. Hapuarachchige ysoS meñKs,slre úiska Tmamqjla u.ska foam<l

w¾:,dNS ysñlu ;ud fj; ;ndf.k tu foam, wkshï Nd¾hdjg mjrd fohs' ;udg mlaIj ilia
l< Ndrhla neúka kej; ,ndfok f,i b,a,Sh'
wêlrK ;SrKh ù we;af;a jxpd je<elaùfï wd{d mkf;a 2 j.ka;sh fyda idlaIs wd{d mkf;a
92 j.ka;sh fyda fuu wjia:djg wod, lr.; fkdyels neúka jdÑl idlaIs u; kvqj fufyúh
yels njhs'
kuq;a fernando v. fernando kvqfõ § fjkia ;Skaÿjla ,nd fokakg úh'

re' 2000l jákdlulska hq;= bvula fkd;dßia mejÍula u.ska frda.S ;eke;af;l= úiska re'600g
,ndfoa' mejreïlre h:d ;;a;ajhg m;a jQ miq kej; mjrd .ekSfï jdÑl .súiqulska fuh isÿúh'
wêlrK ;Skaÿj jQfha Ndrhla ke;s njhs' fya;=j jQfha fuh yqfolau jdÑl .súiqula ùu;a mejÍfï
iïNdú;djka ikd: lsÍug meñKs,a, wiu;a ùu;ah'
Dayawathi and others V. Gunasekara and Others

fuys§ meñKs,slre ú;a;slref.a ujf.a kñka Tmamqj mjrd ú;a;slref.ka uqo,la ,nd.kafka jir
3lska re'17000 f.jQ miq kej; mejÍug h' fYaIaGdêlrKh ;SrKh lr we;af;a jdÑl tl.;ajfha
i|yka ksYaÑ; ld,h ;=<u Kh mshjkq ,eîu fyda fkd,eîu wod< .kqfokqj wkqñ; Ndrhla o
keoao hkak ;SrKh lsÍfï § ;SrKd;aul idOlhla fkdjk njhs'
fuh foam, kej; mjrd §fï ir, .súiquls'
Ikauq.ï t' ;ïnhshd

jir folla i|ydjQ fldkafoais iys; úl=Kqïlrhla m%Yak.; úh' jir 2 wjidk ùug fmr uqo,a
f.jd kej; ñ,g .ekSug wiu;a úh' wêlrKh m%ldY lf<a ld,iSudj bl=;a jQ miq kej;
.súiqula ke;s neúka mqoa.,hl=g lsisúgl;a wkqñ; Ndrhla yg.;a njg m%ldY l< fkdyels njhs'
by; mßÈ jdÑl idlaIs wdfõYH lr.ekSu l< yels wjia;djla f,i hïlsis jxpdjla lsÍfï
fÉ;kdjla u; hï f,aLkhla ilia lr we;súg tu f,aLkhg úreoaOj wdfõYH lsÍu .; yel'
túg jxpd je<elaùfï wd{d mkf;a 2 j.ka;sh yd idlaIs wd{d mkf;a 91 yd 92 j.ka;s wod<
fkdfõ' fï wkqj 83 j.ka;shg wkqj wkqñ; Ndrhla ia:dms; lsÍu i|yd jdÑl idlaIs fhdod.;
yels nj idlaIs wd{d mkf;a 92 j.ka;sfha w;=re úOdkh yd 5^3& j.ka;h
s wkqj ks.ukh l,
yel'
International Law/ Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property... 2018 October no. 04
zfjkafldg oelaùfï yelshdjZ fkdue;sùu ksid ,l=Kl wdfõYH;djh m%;slafIam lrk 2003 wxl
36 ork nqoaêuh foam< mkf;a 103 ^1& ^wE& j.ka;sh hgf;a woyia flfrk "fjkafldg oelaùfï
yelshdj" Tn f;areï .kafka flfiao@
Capability to Distinguish - 103 (1) (d)
103 ^1& ^wE& - tla jHjidhl NdKav fyda fiajd wfkla jHjidhkaf.a NdKav j,ska yd fiajd j,ska"
fjkafldg oelaùfï yelshdj fkdue;s ,l=Kla" ,shdmÈxÑ l< fkdyel'
2003 wxl 36 ork nqoaêuh foam, mkf;a 103 ^1& ^w& " ^wd& " ^we& j.ka;s j,§ wjOdkh fhduq jQfha
wod< ksIamdÈ;h" fjk;a ksIamdÈ;hka f.ka fjkafldg y÷kd.ekSug fkdyels jk "úfYaI" wjia:d
;%s;ajhla iïnkaOfhks'
kuq;a" 103 ^1& ^wE& u.ska"
uQ,dY%h y÷kdf.k tys whs;slref.a NdKav fyda fiajd wka whf.a NdKav fyda fiajd j,ska
fjkafldg y÷kd.ekSug yelshdj we;s ´kEu ,l=Kla wdjrKh lrkq ,nhs'
hï ,l=Kla" fjk;a NdKav yd fiajd j, ,l=Kq u.ska fjkafldg y÷kd.; yels oehs ksYaph l<
hq;af;a wod< isoaêfha lreKq u; mokïjh'
hqfrdamSh fjf<| ,l=Kq kshufhys" 3 ^1& ^b& j.ka;sh u.ska oelafjkqfha ,l=Kla fjkafldg y÷kd
.ekSfï yelshdjlska f;dr fõ kï kS;Hkql+, fkdjk njhs'
óg iudk ;;ajhka$ m%;m

s dokhka tlai;a rdcOdksfha fj<| ,l=Kq ms<sn| mkf;ys o olajd we;'
hqfrdamSh wêlrK meyeÈ,s lrk wdldrhg fj<| ,l=Kla fjkafldg y÷kd .ekSfï yelshdj
hkqfjka woyia lrkq ,nkafka"
ksYaÑ; i,l=K" hï ksYaÑ; jHdmdrfhka meñfKk njo tu jHdmdrhg wod, NdKav" fjk;a
NdKavj,ska fjkafldg y÷kd .ekSu;ah'
Henkel v. OHIM
Freixenet v. OHIM
wêlrK m%ldY lrk mßÈ fjka fldg y÷kd .ekSfï yelshdj fkdue;s hï ,l=Kla"
,l=Kla u.ska n,dfmdfrd;a;= jk wjYHu ld¾hh jk"
1& NdKavj, m%Njh y÷kd.ekSu
2& mdßfNda.slhdg ,l=K u.ska fjka fldg y÷kdf.k NdKav ,nd .ekSfï yelshdj iy bka
miqj;a tu ksIamdokh u ,nd .ekSfï yelshdj
iïmQ¾K fkdlrk njhs'
fjka fldg y÷kd .ekSu ksYaph l< hq;af;a"
01' i,lkq ,nkakd jQ NdKavhg wod<j
02' idudkH wdlD;sfhka yd iajrEmfhka hq;a NdKav j, fukau mdßfNda.slhskaf.a yeÕSï

iïnkaOfhks'
^ mdßfNda.slhka hkakg uyck;dj hkak o Ndú; l< yel'&
Henkel v. OHIM
BOSCH v. OHIM
;%sudK ,l=Kq iïnkaOfhka ksYaph lsÍfï§ wêlrKh jvd;a ie,ls,su;a úh hq;=h' ;%sudK ,l=Kq
iïnkaOfhkao idudkH fj<| ,l=Kq fjkafldg y÷kd .kakd uQ,O¾uhka wod, jk kuq;a
mdßfNda.slhd ms<sn|j ie,lSfï§ ;%sudK ,l=Kq Ndú;d lrkakka fjkia úh yelsh'
Bg fya;=j jkafka NdKavhl m%Njh tys yevh fyda weiqreu u.ska idudkH mdßfNda.slhd tljr
y÷kd fkd.ekSu h'
Stock v. OHIM
Ñ;% fyda mdGhka fkdue;s úg" ;%sudK ,l=Kla fjkafldg y÷kd .ekSu yd Tmamq lsÍu" jpk iy
rEml ,l=Kq fjka fldg y÷kd .ekSu yd Tmamq lsÍug jvd wiSreh'
hqfrdamshdkq úêúOdkj,g b;d ióm 103 ^1& ^wE& j.ka;sh úYaf,aIKh lsÍfï§ by; oelajQ
hqfrdamshdkq kvq ;Skaÿ b;d m%fhdackj;a fjhs'
Special Thank goes to

Dinush Randeniya
Chamika Induwara
Zam Zam Ismail
Nimasha Premadasa
Ravindi de Silva

Answer Guide - Intermediate Year

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer Guide - Intermediate Year

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer Guide - Intermediate Year

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pro|Studies Student’s past paper Guide| Intermediate Year

First compiled and distributed in Sri Lanka in 2017 by the pro|studies

No. 244, Hultsdorp Street, Colombo 12

Text and illustration copyright © Prostudies 2018/2019

The pro|studies and the pro|studies logo

All right reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced

A PDF document of this inscription will be available on pro|studies website/Facebook page

For free distribution

• We have taken the liberty of including Model Answers compiled by our

APRIL 2018 /OCTOBER 2018

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission

The House of Lords Decision

Effect of the decision.

Delict 2018 October 02

01' ish,a, fyda lsisjla ke;. (All or nothing rule)

02' wjidk wjia:d Í;sh (Last opportunity rule)

^1& hï ;eke;af;l= ;u fkdie,ls,su;a l%shdfõ§ wjidk wjia:d Í;sh m%fhdackhg .ekSug

W. H. Bus Co. V. Samaranayaka

iyhl fkdie,ls,a, iïnkaO iSudjka

Gee v. Metropolitan Railway

Newman V. East London Electricity Co. Ltd.

fï wkqj iyhl fkdie,ls,af,a§ B úiska"

Abeysundara v. Abeysundara Nee Edirisinghe

❖ Facts of the case

The present case under scrunity, was filed in April 1986.

⚫ The cause of action of the plaintiff can be broken down as follows -

2. Enticing him away from the plaintiff committing matrimonial offences;

5. Destroyed the matrimonial home, consortium, companionship, assistance and privileges;

6. Broke up her marriage and home.

Therefore, impairment of plaintiff’s personality

Applicable law Roman Dutch Law

*** it also placed emphasis on Animus injuriandi as an essential requirement to be proved.

❖ Wrongful intent is termed as animus injuriandi.

RG Mckerron Wrongs against the marriage relationships

(1) loss of consortium, and

✓ DOLUS is an essential ingredient to impose liability for adultery.

Distribution of proveni and Acquired property in Binna Marriage.

01. Frequent retroactive laws punishing the guiltless or excusing atrocities.

He summarized these ideas as comprising 08 principals

iydhl fkdie,ls,a, hkq meñKs,slreg ;udf.au fkdie,ls,a, ksid ydkshla isÿjQ

iydhl fkdie,ls,a, ú;a;sjdplhla f,i bÈßm;a jQ úg meñKs,slreg ;ud flfrysu mej;sh

01& meñKs,slre <ufhl= jQ úg

02& wk;=rla isÿúh fkdyels njg meñKs,slreg Wml,amkh l,yels ùu'

03& yÈis wjia:d ms<sn| uQ,O¾uh ^ Doctrine of sudden Emergency &

1' hï ;eke;a;l= ;u fkdie,ls,su;a l%shdfõ§ wjidk wjia:d Í;sh m%fhdackhg .ekSug

2' wk;=rl tla md¾Yajhla wk;=reodhl nj ms<sn| fkdoekqj;a jk úg iy wfkla md¾Yjh;a

Wod (- fiajH fiajl iïnkaOh

V. Persons, if any who pointed out the land to be surveyed.

8. EXPLAIN THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF

a) Ramachandran and Another v. Hatton National Bank (2006 – 1 SLR-393)

b) Hatton National Bank v. Jayawardana (2007-1 SLR-181)

A.(01).පළමු විකුණම ද ෝ විකුණනුම් එකඟතාවයට එළඹි දින සිට මාස 18 ක ඇතුළත ද ෝ

B. අත් පත් කර ැනීදම් නිලධාරියා විසින් ,

නියම කරනු ලැබූ දිනදයහි,දේලාදවහි ස ස්ථානදේදී,

*ඉඩදමහි දවදළඳදපාළ අ ය ද ෝ එම ඉඩම මතින් පරවශතා අයිතිය පිළිබඳ

*වන්දි ඉල්ලන තැනැත්තාදේ පිළිදවළින් වූ සම්බන්ධතාව

*17 වන ව න්තිය යටදත් තීරණයක කිරීම සඳ ා විමර්ශනයට අවශය වන යම්

(1)අමාතයවරයා පත්කරනු ලබන සභාපතිවරදයක

(2)අමාතයවරයා පත්කරනු ලබන දසසු සාමාජිකයන් 5 ස් දෙදනක