The Offensive Application of Prescriptive Title in Sri Lankan Land Law: A Chronological Analysis

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive examination of the offensive application of prescriptive title in Sri Lankan land law, tracing its historical origins, judicial development, and current legal status. Unlike many legal systems where prescription primarily serves as a defensive mechanism, Sri Lankan jurisprudence, significantly influenced by English legal principles, firmly established acquisitive prescription as a distinct mode of acquiring absolute title. This allows a possessor not merely to defend their occupation but to actively assert ownership through legal action.

The evolution of this doctrine is marked by pivotal judicial decisions, beginning with Ayanker Nager v. Sinatty (1860) and authoritatively solidified in Perera v. Perera (1903). Subsequent cases, including Carim v. Dholl (1892), Alwis v. Perera (1919), Tillekeratne v. Bastian (1918), and Maria Perera v. Albert Perera (1983), illustrate the varied factual scenarios and legal nuances under which plaintiffs successfully pleaded offensive prescription. These rulings collectively shaped the understanding of "adverse possession" and the stringent requirements for its establishment, particularly in co-ownership contexts.

A significant paradigm shift occurred with the enactment of the Registration of Title Act No. 21 of 1998, commonly known as Bim Saviya. This legislation aims to introduce a system of indefeasible title, thereby precluding prescription for lands registered under its provisions. This legislative change, while intended to enhance certainty in land ownership and marketability, has generated considerable debate regarding its implications for traditional land tenure, equitable considerations, and the practical challenges of its implementation. Despite these modern developments, the principles governing offensive prescription remain highly pertinent for the substantial portion of land in Sri Lanka that remains unregistered.

1. Introduction to Prescriptive Title in Sri Lanka

1.1 Defining Acquisitive Prescription and its Purpose

Acquisitive prescription, often referred to as adverse possession, constitutes a fundamental legal mechanism within Sri Lankan property law. It enables an individual to acquire legal ownership of immovable property through a period of continuous, uninterrupted, and undisturbed possession, provided such possession is held under an adverse or independent title. Section 3 of the Prescriptions Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 is the foundational statutory provision, stipulating that "ten years uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of a land under adverse or independent title leads to successful prescription of that land in favour of the possessor".¹ This means that the possessor gains not merely a right to continue holding the land but an actual title that can only be divested by law.¹

The purpose of acquisitive prescription extends beyond merely stabilizing long-term possession. It serves to inject flexibility into the judiciary's ability to render justice in individual cases, particularly where complex social, economic, cultural, and personal factors influence how people interact with their property.¹ Without this mechanism, courts might be constrained to recognize only formal title, potentially leading to inequitable outcomes.¹ Furthermore, the doctrine incentivizes title holders to maintain and protect their land, thereby increasing land utilization, which aligns with broader objectives of private ownership.¹ It also functions as a safeguard against unjust enrichment, preventing situations where original title holders neglect or abandon their land indefinitely while another party diligently occupies and improves it.¹

1.2 Distinction: Offensive vs. Defensive Application of Prescription

In legal discourse, prescription can operate in two distinct ways: defensively or offensively. The defensive application of prescription acts as a shield, allowing a possessor to successfully defend their long-standing possession against a claim brought by the original owner. This prevents the owner from recovering the property after the statutory period has elapsed.

In contrast, the offensive application of prescription functions as a sword. This report specifically focuses on this aspect, where the possessor actively initiates legal proceedings, such as a declaration of title action, to establish and confirm their ownership based on their long-term adverse possession. The Sri Lankan legal system's interpretation of acquisitive prescription explicitly embraces this offensive capability. As articulated in authoritative decisions, the possessor acquires "not merely the right to continue holding the land against the person who had the dominum when that possession began, but a title of which he can only be divested in one of the modes recognized by law".¹ This interpretation aligns closely with the English concept of adverse possession, which is understood as a mode of property acquisition rather than solely a defensive right.¹

2. Historical Foundations and Initial Recognition (Pre-1871 to Early 20th Century)

2.1 Transition from Roman-Dutch Law to the Prescriptions Ordinance No. 22 of 1871

The legal framework governing prescription in Sri Lanka underwent a significant transformation in the early 19th century. Roman-Dutch law principles on prescription were formally abolished by statute in 1822.¹ This legislative act paved the way for the introduction of English legal principles, which were subsequently codified through the Prescriptions Ordinance No. 22 of 1871. This Ordinance, which came into effect on January 1, 1872 ², established the foundational requirements for claiming ownership through prescription of immovable property.³

The abolition of Roman-Dutch law and the subsequent enactment of the 1871 Ordinance represent a deliberate legislative choice to move beyond a system where long-term adverse possession might only bar a claim, towards one where it could actively create new title. The explicit adoption of "English principles" ¹, which define adverse possession as a "form of acquisition" ¹, underscores this fundamental shift in the conceptualization of property rights. This was not merely a procedural adjustment but a profound re-orientation, empowering possessors to actively acquire ownership through their continuous, undisturbed, and adverse occupation. This legislative intent laid the groundwork for the robust offensive application of prescriptive title that would subsequently be developed through judicial interpretation.

2.2 Early Judicial Interpretations: Establishing Prescriptive Title as a Mode of Acquisition

The path to firmly establishing prescriptive title as a mode of acquisition, capable of offensive application by a plaintiff, was shaped by critical early judicial decisions.

Ayanker Nager v. Sinatty (1860): The Precedent for Vested Title

The Collective Court decision in Ayanker Nager v. Sinatty (1860), rendered under Ordinance No. 8 of 1834 (the precursor to the 1871 Ordinance, containing identical wording in its relevant section), was instrumental in defining the nature of prescriptive rights. This case established that once a prescriptive right is acquired through ten years of uninterrupted user, it becomes a vested title.⁴ The court explicitly rejected a narrow interpretation of the statutory phrase "previous to the bringing of the action," which some argued should mean "next before the bringing of the action".⁴ Such a restrictive interpretation, the 1860 Court warned, would "revolutionize the administration of justice in one of its most important branches".⁴ The ruling concluded that if a plaintiff had acquired a prescriptive right, nothing that happened subsequently could deprive them of it, unless non-user continued for another ten years.⁴ This decision laid the crucial groundwork for understanding prescription as a title-creating mechanism, rather than a mere temporary shield.

Perera v. Perera (1903): Affirming Offensive Application for Plaintiffs

The principles articulated in Ayanker Nager were authoritatively reaffirmed and expanded upon in the landmark Full Bench decision of Perera v. Perera (1903). In this case, the plaintiff sought to vindicate a parcel of land, having acquired it through conveyance, but was ousted by the defendant shortly before instituting the action.⁴ The Commissioner initially dismissed the case, reasoning that the plaintiff, relying on prescriptive possession, was not in physical possession at the time of bringing the action, a view that aligned with some previous conflicting opinions.⁴

The plaintiff, however, contended that the prescriptive possession acquired by his predecessor in title for over ten years had vested him with ownership, making the temporary dispossession immaterial. The Full Bench, particularly through the judgment of Wendt J., overturned the Commissioner's decision. Wendt J. emphatically stated that "the possessor acquires not merely the right to continue holding the land against the person who had the dominum when that possession began, but a title of which he can only be divested in one of the modes recognized by law… Once a prescriptive title is acquired, the consideration whether the holder of it is or is not in possession is as immaterial as if the title was by deed".¹

This ruling was critical for several reasons. It resolved conflicting judicial interpretations that had emerged since Ayanker Nager, firmly re-establishing the principle that prescriptive title, once accrued, constitutes a complete and indefeasible title, akin to one acquired by deed. This authoritative pronouncement provided a stable foundation for the offensive application of prescription, confirming that a plaintiff could indeed use it as a "sword" to declare ownership, even if they were not in physical possession at the precise moment of filing the action. The Supreme Court's commitment to maintaining legal certainty in property law was evident in this decision, recognizing that a fluctuating interpretation of prescriptive title would "shake the titles to many properties and to cause great and general inconvenience".⁴ This judicial stance ensured a predictable and robust framework for the offensive assertion of prescriptive rights for decades to come.

3. Development of Offensive Application through Key Case Law (20th Century)

3.1 Essential Elements for Offensive Prescription

For a plaintiff to successfully plead and establish an offensive prescriptive title in Sri Lankan law, several essential elements must be rigorously proven. These elements, primarily derived from Section 3 of the Prescriptions Ordinance of 1871 and refined through judicial interpretation, are:

1. Uninterrupted and Undisturbed Possession: The claimant must demonstrate continuous possession of the land for the statutory period without any significant break or challenge from the true owner or third parties.¹

2. Adverse or Independent Title (Possession ut dominus): This is perhaps the most critical element. The possession must be "as owner" (ut dominus), meaning the possessor holds and deals with the property as if they had sole control, to the exclusion of others, and not permissively.⁶ The acts of possession must be incompatible with the true owner's title, clearly demonstrating a denial of the owner's rights.⁶ Mere general statements of long possession are insufficient; there must be clear and unequivocal evidence that the possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of their title.⁶ Where possession may be either lawful or unlawful, it is presumed to be lawful in the absence of evidence to the contrary; thus, permissive possession (e.g., a son holding property belonging to his mother) is not adverse.⁶

3. Ten-Year Period: The uninterrupted and undisturbed possession under adverse or independent title must have been maintained for a continuous period of ten years "previous to the bringing of such action".⁵

The judicial refinement of "adverse possession," particularly the concept of ut dominus, is a crucial aspect of this development. While the Ordinance provides the statutory period and the requirement of "adverse or independent title" ¹, the extensive case law elaborates on what "adverse" truly entails. This judicial interpretation moves beyond a literal reading of the statute to ensure that mere physical occupation is insufficient; there must be a clear

animus possidendi—an intention to possess as owner—that is unequivocally hostile to the true owner. This refinement prevents casual or permissive occupation from ripening into title, thereby imposing a significant evidentiary burden on the plaintiff seeking to establish offensive prescriptive title.

3.2 Landmark Cases Demonstrating Plaintiff's Offensive Plea

The following cases illustrate the practical application and judicial development of offensive prescriptive title in Sri Lanka, with plaintiffs successfully asserting their claims:

Carim v. Dholl (1892)

In Carim v. Dholl (1892), the court addressed a situation involving Saibo Umma and her brother, who lived in separate parts of the same house, with the brother holding the formal title deed. Saibo Umma had been in possession for an extended period of thirty years.¹ Following her death, her successors initiated a claim, arguing that she had acquired prescriptive title to the land, either based on a verbal gift or through long-term possession, thereby pleading offensive title.¹

The court acknowledged the lack of sufficient evidence to definitively determine the initial circumstances of Saibo Umma's entry.¹ However, it critically observed that she had possessed the property "ut dominus" for decades, engaging in "independent acts of ownership, such as repairing the house at her own expense".¹ Chief Justice Burnside noted that although her occupation might have begun by sufferance, these overt acts converted her permissive occupation into adverse possession, which the original owner had implicitly recognized.⁸ Consequently, the court held that Saibo Umma had prescribed the property, affirming the offensive application of prescription to establish new title.¹ This case is significant for demonstrating that even if possession originates permissively, clear and overt acts of ownership can transform it into adverse possession, enabling the offensive acquisition of title.

Alwis v. Perera (1919)

The case of Alwis v. Perera (1919) further reinforced the power of long-term possession to establish a new title. In this instance, a patriarch had made multiple attempts to transfer his house, likely to evade creditors.¹ Despite these attempts, his family, including children and grandchildren, continued to reside on the property for over sixty years.¹ The family, through their continuous and extensive occupation, effectively pleaded prescriptive title to establish their ownership. The court recognized prescription in favor of the family, highlighting the ability of such prolonged possession to create a new title.¹ This decision underscored the principle that uninterrupted, long-term possession, even within a familial context (where it implicitly became adverse to the original title holder's attempts to alienate the property), could lead to the offensive acquisition of ownership.

Tillekeratne v. Bastian (1918)

Tillekeratne v. Bastian (1918) is a crucial case for understanding the complexities of prescriptive title among co-owners. The central issue was whether long-term exclusive possession by one co-owner could lead to a presumption of "ouster" (the exclusion of other owners' rights) and thus the acquisition of prescriptive title against them.⁹ While the specific plaintiff's plea is not detailed in the provided materials, the case is cited as establishing that a co-owner

could prescribe jointly owned land.¹

The court established that a co-owner could indeed prescribe jointly owned land if their possession extended "as far back as memory reaches" and other co-owners had not asserted their rights.¹ However, the ruling clarified a critical principle: "nothing short of 'an ouster or something equivalent to an ouster' could bring about that result".⁹ This meant that a co-owner could not simply, by secret intention, convert their possession into adverse possession against other co-owners; there had to be an overt act communicating this change.⁹ This ruling demonstrates the judiciary's careful balancing act between rewarding diligent possessors and protecting existing, often informal, co-ownership structures prevalent in Sri Lanka. The requirement of "ouster" sets a higher bar for co-owners to acquire prescriptive title offensively against their fellow co-owners, preventing the doctrine from being easily abused in contexts where possession is often shared or permissive by its very nature.

Maria Perera v. Albert Perera (1983)

In Maria Perera v. Albert Perera (1983), the plaintiff claimed title to a specific lot based on an amicable partition that occurred in 1951. She argued that this informal partition, followed by her predecessors' and her own continuous possession, served as the "starting-point of prescription amongst the co-owners," and that the evidence was sufficient to establish title by prescription.¹¹

The court held that an amicable partition, even without a formal deed or cross-conveyances, can indeed serve as a starting point for prescription.¹¹ However, it reiterated that mere exclusive possession by a co-owner for ten years is insufficient to establish prescriptive title. The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating a "change of circumstances from which an inference could reasonably be drawn that such possession is adverse to and independent of all other co-owners," amounting to an "act of ouster or something equivalent to ouster".¹¹ In this particular case, the court found the plaintiff's evidence of possession insufficient to demonstrate such a clear change in the character of possession to adverse. This decision further underscored the stringent requirements for co-owners seeking to acquire prescriptive title offensively, highlighting the need for clear and affirmative evidence of a shift from permissive or co-ownership possession to a truly adverse one.

Marshall Appuhamy v. Punchi Banda (1986)

The case of Marshall Appuhamy v. Punchi Banda (1986) provided further refinement to the "ouster" requirement, particularly distinguishing between co-owners and strangers. In this dispute, the plaintiffs and defendants claimed title to the land through different pedigrees.¹² The trial judge initially found in favor of the plaintiffs, acknowledging their original ownership claim and also finding prescriptive title in their favor. The defendants appealed, contending that the parties were co-owners and that the prescriptive title had been wrongly applied.¹²

The court drew a clear distinction between the possession of a co-owner and that of a stranger. It held that "a stranger who enters into possession of the entirety of co-owned property in the belief that he is the sole owner, need not prove ouster or something equivalent to ouster but only adverse possession for a period of 10 years in order to acquire a prescriptive title to it".¹² The mere execution of deeds by other co-owners, the court noted, would not interrupt a stranger's prescriptive possession.¹² This ruling clarified that the stringent "ouster" requirement primarily applies to co-owners, who are presumed to possess on behalf of all co-owners. For a stranger entering with an

ab initio adverse intent, the standard is simpler: proof of ten years of adverse possession. This distinction facilitates offensive claims by those who genuinely believe they are sole owners and act accordingly, streamlining the process for non-co-owner claimants.

Table 1: Key Cases on Offensive Prescriptive Title in Sri Lanka

Case Name & Year	Plaintiff's Offensive Plea (Brief Description)	Key Principle Established (Regarding Offensive Application)
Ayanker Nager v. Sinatty (1860)	Plaintiff claimed prescriptive right of way by uninterrupted user.	Prescriptive right, once acquired, is a vested title; temporary non-possession does not defeat it.
Perera v. Perera (1903)	Plaintiff, ousted shortly before action, relied on predecessor's prescriptive possession for ownership.	Prescriptive title, once acquired, is a complete title akin to one by deed, making physical possession at the time of action immaterial.
Carim v. Dholl (1892)	Successors of Saibo Umma claimed she prescribed the land through 30 years' ut dominus possession.	Permissive occupation can transform into adverse possession through overt acts of ownership, allowing offensive acquisition of title.
Alwis v. Perera (1919)	Family (children/grandchildren) claimed ownership through 60+ years of continuous possession.	Long-term, uninterrupted possession, even within a familial context, can establish new title offensively.
Tillekeratne v. Bastian (1918)	Party (impliedly a co-owner or claiming through one) asserted prescriptive title against other co-owners.	A co-owner can prescribe against other co-owners, but requires clear evidence of "ouster or something equivalent to an ouster," not just long possession.
Maria Perera v. Albert Perera (1983)	Plaintiff claimed title based on amicable partition as starting point for co-owner prescription.	Amicable partition can be a starting point, but co-owner still needs to prove a "change of circumstances" amounting to "ouster" for adverse possession.
Marshall Appuhamy v. Punchi Banda (1986)	Plaintiffs successfully pleaded prescriptive title against defendants with different pedigree.	A stranger entering co-owned property as sole owner needs only 10 years adverse possession; "ouster" requirement primarily applies to co-owners.

4. Commentary by Sri Lankan Legal Experts

4.1 G.L. Peiris's Views on Acquisitive Prescription as a Mode of Property Acquisition

The judicial interpretations that have shaped the offensive application of prescriptive title in Sri Lanka are strongly supported by leading legal commentators. Professor G.L. Peiris, a highly respected Sri Lankan legal scholar, is frequently cited for his authoritative conclusion that acquisitive prescription in Sri Lankan law functions as a distinct mode of property acquisition. His analysis, alongside that of Miller (2008), asserts that this legal mechanism is "comparable to English adverse possession, rather than a mere defence of possession".¹

This scholarly validation of the judicial interpretation is significant. It demonstrates that the courts' stance, particularly as exemplified in cases like Perera v. Perera, was not merely an isolated judicial decision but represents a widely accepted and academically supported understanding of the law's development. The consensus among prominent legal experts that prescription is a "mode of acquisition of property" underscores the intellectual foundation for its use as a "sword" in Sri Lankan jurisprudence. This alignment between judicial pronouncements and scholarly commentary reinforces the legitimacy and stability of offensive prescriptive title within the country's legal system.

5. Recent Legal Status and Future Outlook (Late 20th Century to Present)

5.1 The Impact of the Registration of Title Act No. 21 of 1998 (Bim Saviya)

A profound shift in Sri Lankan land law was introduced with the enactment of the Registration of Title Act No. 21 of 1998, commonly known as Bim Saviya. Certified on April 29, 1998 ¹³, this legislation aims to fundamentally transform land administration by transitioning from a deed registration system to a title registration system.¹³ Modeled on the Australian Torrens System, its primary objective is to establish greater certainty and clarity in land ownership.¹³

A cornerstone of this Act, and a direct counterpoint to the historical development of offensive prescription, is Section 57, which explicitly "precludes prescription of land registered under the Act".¹ This means that once a land parcel is title-registered under Bim Saviya, the entries in the register are made "conclusive evidence of the ownership that is registered and cannot be questioned in any Court, except under the provisions of this Act".¹³ Furthermore, the Act specifies that "prescription has been excluded in the case of tide registered lands".¹³

The enactment of Section 57 represents a direct legislative reversal of the long-standing judicial and academic acceptance of offensive prescriptive title for registered lands. This legislative change marks a clear policy decision to prioritize absolute certainty of title and marketability over the equitable considerations that historically justified the doctrine of prescription. The new system creates a bifurcated legal landscape where prescription continues to apply to unregistered lands, but is expressly abolished for those brought under the title registration regime. This reflects a strategic move towards a more streamlined and secure land market, aiming to reduce title disputes and facilitate economic activities such as obtaining credit facilities.¹³

5.2 Critiques and Debates on the Abolition of Prescription for Registered Lands

Despite its stated objectives, the Bim Saviya program and the preclusion of prescription for registered lands have faced significant challenges and critiques. The implementation has been notably slow, with only 0.72 million out of an estimated 12 million land blocks registered in 20 years.¹⁴ This slow pace is attributed to the enormous expense and considerable time required for cadastral surveys and title investigations, even with modern techniques.¹³ The process often unearths numerous disputes that were latent under the previous system, as even persons not in actual enjoyment of land are compelled to protect their legal rights once indefeasible title is to be conferred.¹³

Critics argue that the complete abolition of acquisitive prescription for registered lands is "damaging to the natural rights foundation of property law" and will "cause injustice in specific cases".¹ This position posits that allowing title holders to remain unchallenged

ad infinitum, even if they entirely neglect their land, represents an "extreme positivist position contrary to the spirit of natural rights".¹ The concern is that this could lead to situations where land is abandoned by its legal owner, but a diligent possessor, who has cultivated and protected it for decades, cannot acquire title, potentially leading to unjust enrichment for the absentee owner.¹

Furthermore, the Act's provisions concerning co-ownership have been deemed "unrealistic" and enacted "without appreciation of the fact that many co-owners are and need to be in possession, occupation and enjoyment of some part of the land".¹³ The Act's provision for the appointment of a manager for co-owned property, equating them to a trustee, is seen as problematic, as co-owners often desire direct possession and enjoyment rather than merely a share of produce or income.¹³ The new law's approach to co-ownership, which effectively repeals it in favor of divided shares with approved subdivision plans, also raises questions about its compatibility with traditional Sri Lankan land use patterns and familial arrangements.¹⁵

There is also a notable concern regarding the lack of public and legal professional knowledge about Bim Saviya, hindering its effective integration.¹⁴ The imported Australian Torrens system, without sufficient adaptation, may not accommodate existing land rights under personal laws or traditional servitudes crucial for agricultural purposes.¹⁴ This situation highlights a fundamental tension in Sri Lankan property law reform. While the Act strives for greater efficiency and certainty in land transactions, it does so by overriding long-established principles like prescription and traditional co-ownership. This suggests a broader implication: the legal system is grappling with how to modernize land administration without inadvertently causing injustice or disrupting deeply ingrained social and cultural practices related to land tenure. The slow implementation and ongoing debates underscore the difficulty of imposing a foreign-derived system without adequate adaptation to local realities.

5.3 Other Relevant Amendments to the Prescription Ordinance

While the Registration of Title Act introduces a new regime for registered lands, the original Prescriptions Ordinance No. 22 of 1871 has continued to be subject to legislative refinement. It has been amended by Ordinances 2 of 1889 and 26 of 2014.¹⁶ Additionally, the Prescription (Special Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 2016, further modifies the conditions under which prescription can be claimed.¹⁶

These amendments primarily address specific considerations and vulnerabilities within the traditional prescription framework for unregistered lands. For instance, Section 13 of the Ordinance provides protections for individuals under certain disabilities, such as minors or those of unsound mind, against whom prescriptive rights cannot be claimed as long as the disability continues.¹ Similarly, Section 15 explicitly protects state land from prescription, ensuring that adverse possession cannot be established against government-owned property.¹ These ongoing legislative adjustments demonstrate that, parallel to the sweeping reforms of Bim Saviya, the legislature remains engaged in fine-tuning the traditional prescription framework. The inclusion of protective measures for disabled persons and state land indicates a recognition of specific vulnerabilities and public interests that require safeguarding, even within a system that generally allows for offensive acquisition of title.

6. Conclusion

The offensive application of prescriptive title in Sri Lankan land law possesses a robust historical and judicial foundation, allowing diligent possessors to acquire absolute ownership through long-term adverse possession. This doctrine was firmly established by the Prescriptions Ordinance of 1871, which transitioned the legal landscape from Roman-Dutch principles to English-influenced concepts of acquisitive prescription. Landmark judicial decisions, particularly Perera v. Perera (1903), authoritatively confirmed that a prescriptive title, once acquired, is a complete and vested right, capable of being asserted offensively by a plaintiff, even if temporarily dispossessed.

Throughout the 20th century, judicial interpretations continuously refined the essential elements of adverse possession, especially in complex scenarios such as co-ownership. Cases like Tillekeratne v. Bastian (1918) and Maria Perera v. Albert Perera (1983) imposed a higher evidentiary burden on co-owners, requiring clear proof of an "ouster" or a definitive change in the character of possession to establish adversity against their fellow co-owners. Conversely, Marshall Appuhamy v. Punchi Banda (1986) clarified that this stringent "ouster" requirement does not apply to strangers who enter land with an initial adverse intent. This nuanced approach reflects the judiciary's role in balancing the policy of rewarding diligent possessors with the need to protect existing property rights and traditional land tenure structures.

The advent of the Registration of Title Act No. 21 of 1998 (Bim Saviya) marks a significant policy shift. By precluding prescription for registered lands, this legislation aims to achieve indefeasible title and enhance certainty in land transactions. This creates a bifurcated system where the traditional principles of offensive prescription continue to apply to unregistered lands, while a new regime governs registered ones. This reform, however, has sparked critical debates concerning its slow implementation, high costs, and potential for injustice. Critics argue that the complete abolition of prescription for registered lands may undermine equitable considerations and disrupt deeply ingrained social and cultural practices related to land tenure, particularly concerning traditional co-ownership patterns.

Despite these legislative changes for registered lands, the principles and precedents governing offensive prescription remain highly relevant for the substantial majority of lands in Sri Lanka that are yet to be registered under Bim Saviya. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of its historical development, judicial nuances, and modern implications remains crucial for legal practitioners, policymakers, and landowners navigating the evolving landscape of property rights in Sri Lanka.