Indrasumana Thero v. Kalapugama Vpali
1966Present: SansonI, C.J., and Sri Skanda Rajah, J.INDRASUMANA THERO, Appellant, and KALAPUGAMA. UPALI,Respondent
8. C. 96/1964—D. C. Panadura, 750
Buddhist ecclesiastical law—Pudgalika property of a bhikkhu—Scope of temple'sright to it after bhikkhu's death—Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, 88. 20, 23.
Section 23 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance reads as follows :—
“ 23. All pudgalika property that is acquired by any individual bhikkhufor his exclusive personal use, shall, if not alienated by such bhikkhu duringhis life-time, be deemed to be the property of the temple to which suchbhikkhu belonged unless such property had been inherited by suchbhikkhu. ”
Held, that leaving a Last Will is not an alienation contemplated bySection 23. 1
1 (1940) 17 C. L. W. 49.» (1935) 37 N. L. R. 139.
’ (1918) 6 C. W. R. 224.* (1952) 54 N. L. R. 20.
SANSONT, C.J.—Indraaumana Thero v. Kalapugama Upali
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Panadura.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., with S. S. Basnayake and R. C. Gooneratne,for Petitioner-Appellant.
No appearance for the Respondent.
September 3, 1966. Sansoni, C.J.—
The petitioner-appellant who is the Controlling Viharadhipathy ofthe Paramavisuddaranaya temple, Gangula, Panadura, applied foran order of payment in his favour for a sum of nearly Rs. 38,000 whichwas deposited in two Banks.
That money was the pudgalika property of one RambukewelaSeelananda Thero, the former Viharadhipathy of that temple. UnderSection 23 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, the money nothaving been alienated by the deceased in his lifetime, became theproperty of the temple. Although he has left a Last Will that is notan alienation contemplated by Section 23.
Under Section 20 the money vests in the petitioner and he is entitledto withdraw it.
The order of the District Judge is set aside, and we direct that themoney be paid out to the petitioner.
Ski Skanda Rajah, J.—I agree.
Order set aside.
INDRASUMANA THERO, Appellant, and KALAPUGAMA UPALI, Respondent