(from the digital repository of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura: http://dr.lib.sjp.ac.lk )

clearly shows the fakeness of the mysterious sources "recovered"  by the great Srilankan historian and epigraphist S. Paranavitana (1896-1972) at the end of his career (for earlier, more serious, references by the same, see: 

http://www.sards.uni-halle.de/?do=query s.v. "Paranavitana" and "Paranavitana, Senerat [sic] or Senarat",

https://books.google.com/books?id=5Xk_AQAAIAAJ - or JRAS 88, 1956, pp. 237-40, and 89, 1957, pp. 213-4 , about the Panākaḍuva copper-plate of Vijayabāhu I... as... a forgery - his complete bibliography is given in his 1978 Commemoration volume pp. 1-19:  https://books.google.com/books?id=OIceAAAAIAAJ),

provided and used in his 1964-72 books such as

    https://archive.org/details/TheGreeksAndTheMauryasSParanavitana_201807

    https://books.google.com/books?id=y2lXAAAAMAAJ

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Story_of_Sigiri.html?id=lo0cAAAAMAAJ 

(I noted also his article "Newly discovered historical documents relating to Ceylon, India and South-East Asia" issued in The Buddhist Yearly (Halle = Jahrbuch für buddhistische Forschungen / Buddhist Centre Halle, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Buddhistische Forschungen in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik), 1967, pp. 26-58, or articles on "A Greek prince who was a Buddhist missionary" (item 287 in the B., 1969), and on "Traditions about Kālidāsa that were prevalent in Śrīvijaya" (it. 296, 1970).)

It sometimes misled scholars: so V. Raghavan in his foreword to C.R. Swaminathan's Jānakīharaṇa of Kumāradāsa (1977, pp. vii) and S. Lienhard about the same mahākāvya in A History of Classical Poetry (p. 197-8 and fn. 134)

In the latter case, Raghavan and Lienhard rely on Paranavitana's introduction to the Srilankan 1967 critical edition of the JH (the critical edition itself, made with C. E. Godakumbura, appears not affected by the forgery):

The passage invoking a new source being "the continuation of the Suvarṇṇapuravaṃśa" starts on p. lxi - cf. also p. lxv about the Paraṃparapustaka and the "other" (invented) lost mahākāvya of Kumāradāsa entitled 

Śrīghanananda.

I would be interested to know if other scholars have been mislead by Paranavitana's forgeries (not yet openly claimed as such at the time of his 1978 Commemoration Volume, even if the end of his obituary p. xi seems to not take seriously the results of his last reinterpretation of the history of Sri Lanka on the basis of the "so-called interlinear inscriptions", which rather demonstrate his "highly imaginative mind").

I just discover, through SARDS, Paranavitana's posthumous reference (not included in his 1978 bibliography): "The Dhvanikārikās in fifteenth century Ceylon, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society", 94, 1974, S. 131-13 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/599740 ) which obviously is another example of his forgeries (like for Kumāradāsa, it aims to establish Paranavitana's own views in literary history).

Best wishes,

Christophe