The many shades of life

An eclectic mix of paintings and photographs are on exhibition at the Havelock Place Gallery till August 13. 

The paintings cover a diverse range of styles and techniques with the only common ground being that all four artistes are self- taught and better known for their interests outside the arts.

Dini Kurukula-suriya's photographs were taken some years ago and are evidence of a fortunate combination of circumstance and available light. The common feature of these pictures is a focus on the textures seen in the ordinary world. 

On the other hand, black humour and decadent women, colour Mike Masila-mani's paintings.

Namalee Siriwar-dane's paintings are very elaborate, with one series in ink based on oriental structures. Another one called the angel series in mixed media is of an almost cruel sensuality and third seems to come from a fairy-tale.

Kumudu Dias's paintings are mostly in earthy colours, faces and figures which resemble ancient prints with the simplicity of the lines giving them a somewhat tribal touch.

The exhibition is on at the Havelock Place Bungalow, 6 & 8 Havelock Place, Colombo 5. 

Law and Citizen

Path obstruction

By Dr. C. Ananda Grero

Owing to a land dispute, when a breach of the peace is likely, the provisions of Part VII of the Primary Courts' Procedure Act come into effect or could be invoked. Popularly known as Section 66, it provides quick remedies to the party or parties affected.

A "dispute affecting land" includes any dispute as to the right of possession of any land or part of a land and the buildings thereon or the boundaries thereon or as to the right to cultivate any land or part of a land, or as to the right to the crops or produce of any land or part of a land, or as to any right in the nature of a servitude affecting the land. Any reference to "land" in this Part includes a reference to any building standing thereon (Section 75 of the Act).

To reach the main road from the land where Citizen Simon Appu is residing, he has to go over the land belonging to Citizen Albert. Albert allowed Simon to use a footpath along the western boundary of his land. Simon Appu and the members of his family had been using this path for over 20 years and they had thereby acquired a right in the nature of a "servitude" as described in civil law.

"The definition of a servitude is that it consists of a right to the limited use of a piece of land unaccompanied either by the ownership or the possession of it." (The Law of Property in Sri Lanka Volume 3, Prof. G.L. Peiris).

Citizen Albert died and his wife and two children became the owners of the land over which the footpath runs. A month after the death of Albert, his eldest son Siripala with a view to protecting this land put up a fence at the entrance to the land of Simon Appu thereby preventing him and his family from using the footpath. At the time the fence was put up, Simon Appu asked Siripala not to obstruct the right he had enjoyed in the past 20 years. He pointed out that a great injustice was being caused to him and asked him to remove the fence. Siripala abused him and threatened to assault him if anything was done to the fence. Now a dispute had arisen and a breach of the peace was likely.

Simon Appu immediately made a complaint to the police and the Officer-in-Charge made an attempt to settle it, but no settlement was reached. The OIC decided to file a report in the Primary Court (if there is no such court, the Magistrate's Court has the power to deal with such a matter) and both parties were asked to appear in court on the day the report was filed.

Both parties appeared and they were represented by lawyers. Simon Appu's Attorney-at-Law made a request to court to make an interim order under Section 67(3) of the Primary Courts' Procedure Act as his client was greatly inconvenienced due to the fence. He further informed court that his client was landlocked and could not go to the main road. He produced a report from the Grama Niladari that this obstruction to the footpath caused great hardship to Simon Appu and the members of his family.

The Primary Court Judge took into consideration the police report and the report of the Grama Niladari. He also considered the submissions made by the respective Attorneys-at-Law. Acting under Section 67 (3) of the aforesaid Act he made an interim order directing the respondent Siripala to remove the fence which caused the obstruction to the footpath. He further requested the police to report to court whether his order was carried out by Siripala. Parties were given three weeks to file their affidavits setting out their claims and to annex any documents if any, on which parties relied.

As ordered by court, respondent Siripala removed the fence that very day itself. His Attorney-at-Law prepared the affidavit stating that in order to safeguard his property he put up the fence and though his father Albert permitted Simon Appu to use this footpath, he did not give his permission, neither had his mother and brother, the other two owners of this land.

Siripala's mother and brother filed affidavits stating that they did not give permission to Simon Appu to use the footpath after the death of Albert. They requested court to add them as parties to the case.

Citizen Simon Appu in his affidavit stated how he began to use this path even before Albert became the owner of the land. As his land is adjoining the land of Albert, they used the path to have access to the main road. He claimed that he had acquired a right to this path by using it for a long time without interruption until Siripala suddenly put up a fence.

On the day the affidavits were filed by the parties, the court acting under Section 66 (6) of the Primary Courts' Procedure Act induced the parties to arrive at a settlement before the matter was fixed for inquiry. The Judge explained to the respondents that this path had been used by Simon Appu for the last twenty years and the facts disclosed that there was no alternative way for Simon Appu to reach the main road. 

It was finally agreed to put up two gates at the two entrances, which would be locked by Simon Appu in the night so that there was protection for the land.

Simon Appu agreed to bear the cost of putting up the two gates. Siripala and the other two respondents agreed not to obstruct the use of the path. Court recorded the settlement and directed the parties to sign the record. Further, an order was made based on the settlement reached by the parties. Thus, Section 66 of the Primary Courts' Procedure Act provided a quick remedy to the dispute and Citizen Simon Appu managed to use the footpath as usual, subject to the condition that he has to lock the two gates in the night.

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents