Further, it is suggested that the rule of abatement of actions per the Civil Procedure Code be suspended for all partition actions that were pending at the time the armed conflict commenced, and parties be encouraged to continue to conclude pending partition actions. Even commencement of new actions for co-owned property would be a welcome suggestion since the finality in a partition action solves all disputes in relation to land. This course of action, however, also has its disadvantages. First, experience indicates that the time needed to conduct partition action is long and the process expensive. Second, institution of partition action would become difficult since the Act requires that all co-owners or their heirs and/or all possible claimants be added as parties. The whereabouts of some of the possible claimants may not be known and some may be missing or have died. Third, there is a possibility of a few co-owners getting together and filing a partition action without adding the names of the other co-owners. It is, therefore, suggested that a preliminary certificate (such as a non-settlement certificate or a certificate confirming fitness for partition) be issued by a competent board (such as mediation board or the like) prior to the filing of the partition action. This would ensure that fraudulent practice is not resorted to and all necessary parties are added to the action. The next issue involves a co-owner possessing land and claiming ownership to its entirety. In the case of Corea Vs. Iseris Appuhamy12, it was held that a co-owner possesses the land for and on behalf of the other co-owners and could not prescribe against them. Specific ouster would, however, give a co-owner a prescriptive title. Due to the armed conflict, even if there had been a specific ouster the aggrieved co-owner may not have been in a position to vindicate his rights. Therefore it is suggested that the co-owner’s prescriptive title should not be recognized for possession during the conflict, even if specific ouster is visible. In regard to possession by a third party of a co-owned property, the law stipulates that a coowner can vindicate his rights of possession without adding the other co-owners as parties. This position could be retained, and the mechanisms suggested for eviction of trespasser from a solely owned property could be applied. In regard to the other issues concerning co-owned land, there is a possibility of co-owned land being sold to outsiders without offering it to the persons entitled to pre-empt, as required by the provisions of the Thesawalamai Pre-emption Ordinance No. 59 of 1949. This will apply to all lands situated in the Province of Jaffna. The law of Pre-emption is also retained in the Thamil Eeela Thesawalamai Law No 03 of 1993 and enacted by the orders of the LTTE. This shows that the retention of this provision is a will of the people of the land. Persons who purchased undivided shares in a co-owned land, may have purchased it without the knowledge of the applicable law or it is possible that the whereabouts of the other co-owners were not known. The application of section 6(2) of the Thesawalamai Preemption Ordinance making the deed null and void may, therefore, not be reasonable in the circumstances. It is suggested that if such purchase is made null and void, the purchaser should be properly compensated for any improvements made to the land. In summary the following may be necessary: 1. 2. 12 Issue of a certificate that the folio is not available and provision to register lis pendens in a new folio and a lis pendens register Suspension of the rule of abatement of actions for pending partition cases 15 NLR 65 20