Source: https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/1977/12/31/hendrick-et-al-v-sarnelis-et-al/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:13:25+00:00

Document:
HENDRICK et al. v. SARNELIS et al.
Servitude—Right of way acquired by prescription—Deviation of route by non-notarial agreement—Right does not attach to new route—Assent does notamount to permissive user.
A right of way acquired by prescription does not attach to a new routesubstituted by agreement in place of the old route in the absence of anotarial agreement or a user for the prescriptive period.
Dias v. Fernando (37 N. L. R. 305) not followed.
Assent to the use of a right of way by acquiescence does not preventthe period of prescription from running.
Don Dionis v. Saranhamy (1 C. W. R. 85) followed.
^ PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Gampaha.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him J. R. Jayawardana), for the plaintiffs,appellants.
Francis de Zoysa, K.C. (with him L. A. Rajapakse), for the defendants,respondents.
cattle track. Assent by acquiescence does not prevent the period ofprescription running. In this connection I would refer to Don Dionis v.Saranhamy The reasoning, therefore, on which the Commissionerfound for the defendants is based on wrong premises.
1 1 C. W. R. So.115 N. L. R. 257.
* 3 C. L. Rec. 82.* 17 N. L. R. 29.
at any point which is at the moment most convenient ”. The samereasoning was followed by Ennis J. in Morgappa v. Casie Chetty.1 In thiscase the learned Judge stated that one track cannot be substituted foranother without a notarially executed document or user of the new trackfor the full prescriptive period. He distinguished the case of Costa v.Livera ’ because in that case the existence of a right of way was admitted.The same principle was also formulated by Wendt J. in Andris v. Manuel *and applied by Fisher C.J. in Fernando v. Fernando * in which the casesof Madanayake v. Thimotheus, Karunaratne v. Appuhamy and Kandaiahv. Seenitamby were cited with approval.
117 N. L. R. 31.* 31 X. L. R. 12C.
« 16 N. L. R. 26:‘ 37 N. L. R. 303.
* 2 S. C. D. 69.• 16 N. L. R. 26.
KEUNEMAN J.—Rotoeeno Umma v. Rahuma Umma.
J.does not even mention the case of Costa v. Liver a in the case of Kandiahv. Seeniiamby which, so it seems to me, is authority for the contraryproposition. In the circumstances I am of opinion that Dias v. Fernandois in conflict with the numerous other authorities that I have cited. Theright of a cattle track over the new route is based neither on ten yearsuser nor on a notarially executed agreement. The appeal therefore failsand must be dismissed with costs.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.