Judgment නියැදි කොටස්

Judgment. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA C.A.No.1125/98 (F) D.C.MT.LAVINIA CASE NO.231/SPL/97 Before : K.T.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇ Counsel : ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ P.C. with ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ for the Defendant-Appellant ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ P.C. with ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ for the Plaintiff-Respondent Argued on : 2013.08.27 Written Submissions on : 30th September 2011 by the Defendant- Appellant 30th September 2011 by the Plaintiff-Respondent Decided on : 2014.02.05 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. This is an appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 30.12.1998 of the learned District Judge of Mt. Lavinia. In the petition of appeal the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) also sought to have the action filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) dismissed. The action of the respondent is to have the gift given to the appellant by executing the deed bearing No.304 dated 18.01.1990 attested by K.D.C.V.Karunaratne, Notary Public, revoked. This deed was marked PI in evidence. Parties to the action are the sister (appellant) and the brother (respondent) of the same family. The property that was gifted by the said deed is described as lot 17C(1) in Plan No.749 dated 15.07.1975 (vide page 143 of the appeal brief). The father of the two parties, who was the earlier owner of the premises in suit, had gifted this property to the respondent reserving to himself and to his wife a life interest. That is how the respondent became entitled to the property in question. Thereafter respondent gifted it to the appellant by the deed marked PI subject to his life interest in the property. The respondent filed this action to have the said gift revoked on the basis of gross ingratitude. The said contention of the respondent is clearly evident by paragraph 14 in the plaint (vide page 23 of the appeal brief) and also by the issue No. 11 raised at the trial on his behalf. (vide page 27 of the appeal brief) Even though the cause of action is on the basis of gross ingratitude, the respondent in the plaint as well as in the issues has also described the circumstances alleged to have led to cause gross ingratitude committed by the appellant. The appellant in her answer as well as in the issues raised at the commencement of the trial has taken up the position that the respondent is not entitled in law to revoke the gift on the grounds as described by the respondent. Learned District Judge, when he decided the case in favour o...