Law Proposes & Truth Disposes

They say  ‘Man Proposes and God Disposes’.  Where a law has Truth as its base it would lead its practitioners to Truth. Where laws are made towards quick and easy outcomes/benefits to elevate the status of lawmakers they die on the one hand or live to confirm the negative karma of their supporters, on the other.  The contribution of one who uses the law genuinely reaches the system of Truth and empowers the person from within. Thus that Truth becomes the guru of the person. Such a person is independent to that extent.

The Sri Lankan ethnic issue has contributed to the Lankan Tamil becoming more global than the Indian Tamil.  The latest medium through which the Truth discovered by Tamils is manifesting Itself is the Hon Wigneswaran who is being criticized by many leaders – including from within the Tamil Community. They did not criticize when Mr. Wigneswaran acted in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers  between the Judiciary and the Executive – in becoming  Politician and continued to carry his old portfolio – as Justice Wigneswaran. I did and  from then on I looked for connections with the pathway of Truth because I felt that Mr. Wigneswaran needed it for his own inner confidence in an environment that was filled with the status of ‘defeat’.  That was his reality and consciously or otherwise – he has become the passage through which Truth has manifested Itself.

The author of the Ceylon Today  article ‘Wiggy’s homeland dream to remain a dream!’ reveals the author’s own assessment as follows:

[It was only as recent as last Monday (September 19, 2016) that this columnist proved Wigneswaran's schizophrenic personality, or split personality, in apparently what a Consultant Psychiatrist would dub him as a victim of the Bi-Polar Syndrome!]

If the Sri Lankan Government considers Australia to be its senior in Democracy -  then it has accepted that being Bi-Polar does not prevent one from holding the position of Judge. Magistrate Pat O’Shane who confessed to being Bi-Polar sent me for a mental health check through which I was certified as being mentally ill and the only reason I could find in the documents was that I was a follower of Gandhi and devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. No Australian law could have helped me work out why the Magistrate found me to be mentally ill. But Truth helped me work out the reason why – AFTER I completed my duty through the Judicial path and complained against Magistrate Pat O’Shane through Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The main reason for Australia to have this law is the protection of Aborigines. Magistrate Pat O’Shane is part of the group that was victimized by White Australian rules that majority Aborigines did not relate to. When a member of the victims’ group is disrespectful of a law that came into being for their own protection and support – the damage is far greater for the victims’ group than when the perpetrators disregard and/or disrespect that law. But such persons often become the media for the manifestation of karma. Magistrate Pat O’Shane – punished me without a legal basis and the Police did not protest against such ruling. If not for my family, I would have been in prison for Peaceful Assembly at the University of NSW, for at least a year. It is because of Magistrate Pat O’Shane’s irresponsible assessment  that I had to give an undertaking that I would not step into the University. I have not ever since I gave that undertaking. Neither the Police nor the University has acted to correct the wrongful assessment by a magistrate. But the system of Truth has been acting to demote the Judge – about whom the Wikipedia states as follows:

[A study in 2012 by Michael Eburn and Ruth Townsend of the Australian National University College of Law examined 56 Supreme Court appeals of cases heard before O'Shane between 1999 and 2012. Of the 56 appeals, 35 (62.5%) were upheld. Of the 16 criminal cases included, 14 appeals were upheld. Eburn and Townsend wrote: "The Supreme Court has found that O'Shane had got the law wrong in 14 out of the 16 criminal cases ... In one case she dismissed a charge even though the accused had entered a plea of guilty."  Supreme Court judges criticised O'Shane for "denying the prosecution procedural fairness," and "failure to comprehend the basis of the prosecution case or the evidence before her, use of intemperate language and making numerous errors of law." Eburn and Townsend compared the records of two other magistrates with similar experience and found only eight and nine appeals against them respectively.  They called for O'Shane's resignation.]

As per official records,  Magistrate Pat O’Shane resigned in 2013. But I, through my Truth, dismissed Magistrate Pat O’Shane – in 2005. The gap between the two times is the level of corruption within the Judicial system. In Democracy bottom-up Truth has to be facilitated to override top-down law. To the extent the Australian Judiciary failed – they confirmed their own weaknesses. Likewise, the above reporter who wrote as follows, demonstrating his own mental disorders through Mr. Wigneswaran’s personality:

[Now, within a week, he has come out with another bombshell! He is under the impression (read hallucination!) that he has hit the jackpot on his homeland theory.
Now, hot on the heels of President Maithripala Sirsena telling both the 65th SLFP Convention and the 70th UNP Convention...."Awake all you Sri Lankans," by which he implied those who belong to all ethnic groups, the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims, now comes the letter from Chief Minister Wigneswaran dated 21 September of the notification of the parallel to President Sirisena's clarion call to the nation. Wiggy has now called for a Eluga Thamil" which means Awake Tamils!]

I reported about the President of Sri Lanka as follows around the same time the above author wrote his assessment about the Tamil Chief Minister :

“This morning I read the Sri Lankan President’s speech at the UN General Assembly delivered yesterday. It is reported to have included the following passage:

[Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. There are solutions in Buddhist teachings to most of the problems faced by the people in this world. Similarly, those who follow other religions like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity too can find answers to these problems by these great religious philosophies…….Effectively the President of Sri Lanka has declared that there is not one Sri Lanka but four countries – One Buddhist Lanka, One Hindu Lanka, One Muslim Lanka and One Christian Lanka.  That is how UN values of Equal Opportunity can be maintained. Those driven by the physical need that physical separation. Thank you Mr. President for sharing your True basis. No more claim of Unity Government under the current leadership – says King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, a Sinhalese who practiced Hinduism with DIGNITY of his Sovereignty]”

When Mr. Wigneswaran called on Tamils to awaken themselves – I wrote as follows:

[The timing of Chief Minister Wigneswaran’s call – confirms Hindu power over Sri Lankans. The Hon Douglas Devananda who is well known in Jaffna for his services as Minister for Hindu Affairs – is a Natural leader of such a group. They may use the politically correct title of Tamil uprising. Language is merely the outer form of  common beliefs that a group has. The deepest belief even without the numbers has the natural leadership position. If this is Buddhism in Colombo – it is Hinduism in Jaffna. Even Lord Muruga of Kathirgamam has to respond to that true call. The group has this Hindu’s complete support for a peaceful manifestation of their rights – using the Political language of Land but not protest against Buddha in Jaffna.]

Those who rely on the officials in a disorderly system often develop mental disorders. The author of Ceylon Today article has demonstrated such disorder – by finding fault with Mr. Wigneswaran for responding in action – to the message delivered by the President of Sri Lanka at the UN Assembly, while praising the President who hailed within Sri Lanka ‘...."Awake all you Sri Lankans". Such a call – if genuine has to be belief based. A President who confirms at UN that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country – means ‘Buddhists’ when he says ‘Sri Lankans’. Mr. Wigneswaran responded as the true Opposition of such a President. Mr. Wigneswaran may not be Democratic but he demonstrated order of Truth when he responded to the Buddhist President. Neither Mr. Sampanthan nor Mr. Sumanthiran opposed the President’s UN message and this opened the pathway to establish the claim of Prescriptive rights over  Hindu areas – in accord with Section 3 of Prescription Ordinance 1871 which includes the following provision:

[Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment  of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs’]

Had the TNA as leading Opposition in Parliament made the call – that would have qualified as being ‘a title adverse to’.  Given that the Chief Minister of Northern Province did – it is a title Independent of – making the Chief Minister the Equal Parallel of the President of Buddhist Sri Lanka. The law says Sri Lanka is for all who qualify as per the law. Mr. Sirisena claimed ‘Buddhist Sri Lanka’ was for Buddhists by Independent Possession of Buddhist areas. Mr. Wigneswaran matched it by claiming its parallel for Tamils – majority of whom are Hindus.

More arguments in this regard as presented in my Land matter is in Appendix.

But to me the Judgment was from within – as per the evidence produced by the person (1^st Defendant) who claimed prescriptive title:

(i)                 The 1^st Defendant Claimed  he occupied the said property from 1962 to 1992

(ii)               The 1^st Defendant claimed he did not witness any legal titleholders or their representatives physically entering the property during this period

(iii)             The 1^st Defendant Claimed that he achieved this despite efforts by two others – one of whom was a Police Officer, to oust him in 1987-88

(iv)             The 1^st Defendant instituted legal action against those who tried to oust him in 1987-1988 – their names being Mr. S.Periyasamy and Mr. Fabian Mitchell, the latter being the OIC – Narahenpita Police at that time.

(v)               The 1^st Defendant  publicly declared ownership by Prescriptive Title on 04 May 1988 and filed action against the above mentioned persons at Colombo District Court through matter 5812/ZL. The map included in this Deed of Declaration  was the Partition Plan 2332 – – included in D.C.Colombo Case No. 12462/P  of  1971 drawn up by Mr. S.R. Yapa Licensed Surveyor & Leveller (– P1(a) at folio 337 of the Appeal Brief)

(vi)             As per the Court  documents in the above matter 5812/ZL – . (folios 294-297 of the Appeal Brief ),  one Mr. S. Periyasamy was residing at 163/7, Nawala Road, Narehenpita, which specific property the Plaintiffs claim is theirs and the one mentioned in the Deed of Declaration dated 04 May 1988. (folios 290-293 of the Appeal Brief ). As per these records, the 1^stDefendant, was living at 28 Nawala Rd Colombo 5 – at that time.

(vii)            Folio 298 of the Appeal Brief confirms  that Mr. Piyadasa was living at 28 Nawala Rd Colombo 5 at the time of registering the Title with the Municipality and that this registration was done by his lawyer.

The Place where Truth Manifested Itself

The above discovery that the 1^st Defendant was living at a different address while he claimed prescriptive title by physical possession of our property – was made not by the lawyers nor was it picked up by the translator who did most of the translation of the transcript. I had done the work to represent myself and I sat in my Coogee home – in the area of my regular meditation – in front of my Spiritual Guru Swami Sai Baba. Then I asked my husband who can read Sinhalese but does not understand Sinhalese, to read the details of the document that was in Sinhalese. He did and I learnt that the 1^st Defendant defeated himself by stating the true address – which was different to the address of the Property to which he claimed Prescriptive Title. The Sinhalese judge did not pick up. To my mind, I picked up due to my deep search and Truth showed Itself.

Every Sinhalese/Buddhist  who is unjustly awarded title to Tamil/Hindu – contributes to Separation of the Country. The Tamil claim is mere confirmation of this consolidated picture.

Appendix

FERNANDO v , WIJESOORIYA (1947) 48 N.L.R. 320
The Learned Judges in that Appeal stated as follows:

“There must be a corporeal occupation of land attended with a manifest intention to hold and continue it and when the intent plainly is to hold the land against the claim of all other persons, the possession is hostile or adverse to the rights of the true owner. It is the intention to claim the title which makes the possession of the holder of the land adverse ; if it be clear that there is no such intention there can be no pretence of an adverse possession. It is necessary to inquire in what manner the person who had been in possession during the time held it, if he held in a character incompatible with the idea that the title remained in the claimant to the property it would follow that the possession in such character was adverse.”

1.      The particular legislation through which the matter was heard is Prescription Ordinance 1871.

2.      Experience v Theory

(i)                 The Base used for these Arguments is that the judgment is in breach of  the fundamental values underpinning Sections 3 & 13 of Prescription Ordinance 1871. It is submitted that the essence of the Law governing Prescriptive Rights is that Experience based Title is of higher value than Legal Title sans Experience. It is submitted that in a Court of Law,  legal Title ranks higher than Title by possession – except when the possessor satisfies the requirements of  Absolute Ownership Value with no recognition whatsoever of another’s title in any form through any pathway.  This kind of Absolute value is demonstrated by full physical possession and complete independence OR adversity/opposition of Equal value to any other form of Title. The Appellants argue that the  judgment appealed against FAILS to demonstrate that:

(a)   the Court had this expectation of the Defendants

(b)   the Defendants satisfied this requirement of complete OR Equally Opposite Experience through physical possession

(ii)                           The validity of this exception is highlighted as follows by Hon Justice Saleem Marsoof, P.C., J.  through  Storer Duraisamy Yogendra  &  Balasubramaniam Thavabalan  Vs. Velupillai Tharmaratnam:

[The decision of five judges of this Court in the Rajendran Chettiar case is not only binding on this Bench as it is presently constituted, but also reflects the practice of Court both in England as well as in Sri Lanka. As Lord Denning, M. R. observed in Salter Rex and Co. v. Ghosh [1971] 2 All ER 865 at page 866 – “Lord Alverstone CJ was right in logic but Lord Esher MR was right in experience. Lord Esher MR’s test has always been applied in practice.”]

(iii)                         It is argued and submitted that the above principle applies also in the case of Prescriptive Rights – where the Absolute value of Experience based Belief developed through an independent or adverse pathway, is respected and recognized as being of higher value than the legal title which often includes theory which may not be applicable to local environments. It is submitted that Logic is relative whereas Belief is Absolute in value. Where theory is practiced – the two would meet at the destination of ownership.

(iv)                         It is submitted that the Prescription Ordinance requires the claimant of Prescriptive title to have had this Experience through wholesome possession.

(v)                           To be accepted at that level – pure of legal logic – Experience based Belief needs to stand on its own rights and not be relative to the logic of any alternate system – in this instance legal title. It is submitted that to be entitled to ownership through the logic based legal pathway – one does not need Belief. Knowledge that one has satisfied the requirements of the legal pathway alone is enough.

(vi)                         To claim Prescriptive rights on the other hand, one needs Belief which is confirmed by wholesome possession – as in blind faith. One who Experiences has Belief. It is submitted that the  facts before the Court were not constructed by the Defendants to satisfy the above requirements of the law that that Ownership Experience was had by the 1^st Defendant and inherited by the 2^nd Defendant.

(vii)                       It is submitted that the Conflict between the Legal Title and the Prescriptive Title is addressed by the Prescriptive Ordinance by  requiring the claimant of Prescriptive Title to have completed the pathway of possession and have reached the Destination of  Realised  Ownership

(viii)                     It is submitted that one such requirement is to travel independent of the Legal Titleholder. Hence the Requirement of Independence or Adversity. Where the Claimant claims no knowledge whatsoever of the Legal Titleholder/s, the requirement of Independence needs to be satisfied. Where the Claimant does confirm knowledge of Legal Titleholder/s and their activities in relation to ownership of the property – the requirement of Adversity needs to be satisfied. It is submitted that the latter needs confirmation of Separation of Powers and Consciousness of Equal & Opposite status.

3.      Fundamental Values on which the Law is structured – as per the minds of the Plaintiff-Appeallants

(i)                 It is submitted that Time and Place define the boundaries  of such knowledge and therefore the criteria through which Diversity is confirmed.  It is submitted that such Diversity is essential to confirm Adverse Possession. It is submitted that to identify with the element of Adverse Possession either Time or Place needs to be fixed. Given that the legal place is fixed as 163/7 Nawala Road;  Narahenpita; Colombo5, the element through which Adversity needs to be proven is Time.

(ii)               It is submitted that in this instance, the Appellants will argue that the Time chosen by the Defendants - to define  ownership to themselves by themselves, was the same as the Time of physical possession by legal titleholders’ representatives - confirmed and validated   by the Courts. In other words, two owners adverse to each other could not have occupied the same place at the one point in time.

(iii)             It is submitted that by accepting  the deed of declaration as the confirmation of Prescriptive Title, the Court took upon itself the Responsibility to establish that such declaration was pure of any such falsity – the falsity  that both opposite parties were present at the same Place at the same Time. Co-owners could validly occupy at the same time different parts of the property. Independent  owners would have physically possessed / occupied at different times. Adverse owners would mentally dismiss  even observed occupation by Legal Titleholders  and hence the test of Adverse Title.

4.      The Arguments in support of the Plaintiff-Appellants are centred around the following conclusions by the Plaintiff-Appeallants:

FACTS

1)      That the Documentary evidence before the Court – coupled with the  Defendants’ verbal evidence in Court confirm that the 1^st Defendant consciously or otherwise, made false Claim of Ownership and gave false evidence in Court hearing this particular matter

2)      The facts that were manifested through the work of legal owners were used by the Defendants and/or their legal representatives whereas the facts required by law ought to have been produced independent of the legal titleholders or through a method adverse to that used by the legal titleholders

LAW

3)      The Rule of Balance of Probabilities was inappropriately applied in forming the Decision

4)      By using this Rule – the test of Adverse Possession was automatically set aside by the honourable Judge

5)      The test of True Belief on the part of  the claimant of Prescriptive Title was not applied but instead, the test of relative possession by majority rule was applied.

6)      Facts manifested by the legal titleholders were admitted in support of the prescriptive titleholders