107-NLR-NLR-V-16-DHAMMAJOTI-v.-SOBITA.pdf
( 408 )
1013.
Present; Pereira J. arid De Sampayo A.J.
DHAMM AJ OTI v. SOBIT A.
93—D. G. Matara, 5,605.
Buddhist ecclesiastical law—Right of incumbent of temple to appoint aparticular pupil as his successor—What constitutes pupilage—Magone man be pupil of two priests f
The general rule of suceession to the incumbency of a Buddhisttemple is that involved in the line of succession known as the“ sieyanusisya paramparawa ” ; but it is open to an incumbent toappoint by deed or will any particular pupil as his Successor.
The question as to what is essential to constitute pupilagediscussed.
It is quite possible for a man to be pupil to two priests andto succeed both.
rpHE facts appear from the judgment.
H. A. Jayewardene, for appellant.
H. J. G. Pereira, for respondent.
The following cases were referred to at the argument:—Dham-majoti Unnanse v. Paranatale,1 Sumangala Unnanse v. SobitaUnnanse2 Dammaratna Unnanse v. Sumangala Unnanse et al.2Sobitta Terunnanse v. SiddatteTerunnanse* §omaloka Terunnanse v.Somalankara Terurmanse,5 Sumangala Unnanse v. Dhammarakkitaet al.6
Cur. adv. vult.
May 23, 1913. Pereira J.—
In this case the question is whether the plaintiff or defendant isentitled to be declared to be the chief incumbent of the Buddhisttemple called the Sirinivasarama Viharastana of Aturaliya. Admit-tedly, Kirti Sri Sumangala Terunnanse was at one time the chiefincumbent of this temple. He by deed P 1, which is described initself as a “ deed of endowment or trust,” appointed one of hispupils, Balukawela Dhammarakita, who is referred to in the deedas the “ fittest person to manage the affairs of the temple,” to themanagement of the Srinivasarama temple. Then, as regardsHeella Dharmapala, another pupil of Kirti Sri, the latter declaredin the deed as follows: ” As Heella Dharmapala is alsoone who
i (1881) 4 S. C. G. 121.6 (1867) Ram. 280.
a (1883) 5 S. G. C. 235.* (1899) 3 N. L. R. 380.
a (1910) 14 N. L. R. 400.6 (1908) 11 N. L. R. 360..
( 409 )
.has hitherto taken care of the property belonging to this temple,Jie is hereby appointed a second in order of authority to continue totake care and look after the property aforesaid hereafter also inthe same manner as he has done hitherto/’ Now, the general ruleol| succession to the: incumbency of a Buddhist temple is thatinvolved in the line( of succession known as the “ sisyanusisyaparamparawa ”; but it is clear that it is open to an incumbentto appoint by deed or will any particular pupil as his successor.(See D. C. Kurunegala, 15,057; 1 Sumangala Unnanse v, SobitaUnnan8e.2) In times anterior to the passing of the BuddhistTemporalities Ordinance, the succession was not only to the statusin a purely religious point of view of the incumbent’, but to hispower over the temple property as well, and apparently deed P 1was framed in imitation of the deeds written in times when themanagement and control of the temporalities or revenues of thetemple went hand in hand with the incumbency of the temple.However that may be, it is clear that it is a part of the defendant’scase that by deed P 1 was appointed the successors in the incumbencyto Kirti Sri Sumangala Terunnanse. The defendant says in hisevidence: “ Heella Dharmapala and Balukawela were appointed tosucceed him (Kirti Sri) by deed XXX. Dharmapala remained soleincumbent after Balukawela died.” The last sentence clearlyimplies that Balukawela was during his lifetime the sole or jointincumbent with Heella Dharmapala under deed P 1. The idea of ajoint' incumbency can hardly be entertained. I read the deed tomean that Heella was appointed thereby to help Balukawela in themanagement of the temple property. Any way, the defendant'switness, Sapugoda Gunananda Terunnanse, says in no uncertainterms: ” I knew Balukawela. When he died he was chief incum-bent of Aturaliya temple.” I do not think there is room for doubtas to Balukawela, and he alone, having been the successor of KirtiSri in the incumbency of the temple in question, although it isequally clear that Heella Dharmapala also continued to live thereand look after its affairs until his death. The evidence shows thatBalukawela lived chiefly at Habaraliya, but that did not deprivehim of the incumbency of the Aturaliya temple. The force ofMudaliyar Gunara.tne’s evidence in favour of the defendant islargely discounted by the reason given by him for supposing thatHeella was incumbent. He says: “ As Heella was an elderly priestand resided at the temple I recognized him as incumbent.”
The next question is whether the plaintiff was a pupil of Baluka-wela Dhammarakita. On this point the case of Dhammajoti Unnansev. Paranatale 3- has been cited to us. It may, I think, be inferredfrom what Dias J. says there, that he was of opinion that robing wasessential to constitute pupilage, but in view of the facts proved thisi Vand. App. F.2 (1883) 5 S. C. C. 235.
1918.
PlPBEIBA J.
Dhammajotiv. Sobita
* (1881) 4 S. C. C. 121.
1913.
Pereira, J.
Dhammajotiv. Sobita.
( 410 )
expression of opinion was mere obiter, and, as the learned Judgehimself observed, it was opposed to the opinion of the High Priestof Adam's Peak, who had been examined as a witness in the case.As the headnote correctly puts it, what was really held in the casewas that instruction, without robing or presentation for orders, wasinsufficient to create pupilage for the purposes of succession underthe rule of the line of succession known as the “ sisyanusisyaparamparawa. ” In the present case there is evidence that theplaintiff was not only instructed, but presented for ordination byBalukawela Dhammarakita, and that he was “ obedient " to him.The High Priest called by the plaintiff says that robing, obedience,and ordination, or any two of them, would be sufficient to constitutepupilage. He mentions instruction also as one of the essentials.I think it is clear that the plaintiff was the pupil of Balukawela,although he may be said to have been Kirti Sri's pupil as well.As the High Priest in his evidence says, it is, I take it, “ quitepossible for a man to be pupil to two priests, and succeed both."
I think that the District Judge is right in the conclusion arrivedat by him as to who is entitled to the incumbency of the Aturaliyatemple, but I am not prepared to say that the plaintiff has madeout a sufficient case either for ejectment—for the present at anyrate—of the defendant from the temple or for the recovery ofdamages.
I would affirm with costs the decree appealed from, except thoseportions of it that order ejectment of the defendant from thetemple, and allow the plaintiff damage at Rs. 50 per annum. Iwould leave the plaintiff to take such further action as he may beadvised if further molested by the defendant in the enjoyment ofthe incumbency.
De Sampayo A.J.—I agree.
Varied.