031-NLR-NLR-V-22-JAYAWARDENE-et-al.-v.-TERUNNANSE.pdf
( U3 )
Present: Bertram C.J. and De Sampayo J.JAYAWARDENE et al. v. TERUNNANSE.
o—D. 0. {Inly.) Matara, .1
Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, ss. 28 and 30 a.—Application bytrustee to call upon incumbent to make a return of property in hispossession—Claim of certain property by incumbent—Applicationby trustee for inquiry into claim—Separate action, i
The trustee of a temple applied to the District Judge, undersection 30 a (c) of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, No. 8 of1905, for an order directing the incumbent to make a return of theproperty in the temple, and a return was accordingly made. Thepriest claimed certain property as his own, and the trustee askedthe Court to hold an inquiry into the matter.
Held, that in the circumstances that this was a matter for aseparate action.
r | THE facts appear from the judgment.
V. Perera, for the appellants.—Under section 28 of the Ordi-nance it is the duty of the incumbent to furnish to the trusteesinformation regarding the lands belonging to the temple. This dutyis not discharged unless a correct return is made. In dealing, withan application under section 30 a (c), which empowers the DistrictJudge to order any person to discharge any duty imposed on himby the Ordinance, the Judge has the power to inquire into thecorrectness of a return made by the incumbent. Where the incum-bent refuses to give information regarding a land on the groundthat it is his “ pudgalika ” property, the Judge has the power toinquire into the validity of such claim in the same proceedings. Heshould at least ascertain whether the claim is made bona fide.
The incumbent has also failed to hand over to the trustees thetemple property in his possession.* The property vests in thetrustees under section 20, and they are entitled to possession. It is13
1920.
( 114 )
1920.
, -rerun*nanee
therefore the duty of the incumbent to hand over such property tothe trustees. Section 29 recognizes such a duty and provides acriminal remedy for its breach. The District Judge should haveacted under section 30 A (c) and ordered the incumbent to dischargethis duty within a definite time.
Baiuwantudawe, for the respondent, was not called upon.
May 21, 1920. Bertram C.J.—
This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge refusingto hold an inquiry into the correctness of a return made by theincumbent of a temple under section 28 of the Buddhist Temporali-ties Ordinance, No. 8 of 1905. It appears that the trustee of thetemple„for whom Mr. Perera appears, applied to the District Judgeunder section 30 a (c) for an order directing the incumbent to makea return of the property of the temple in pursuance of his duty undersection 28. A return was made. The trustee disputed the correct-ness of the return, and made a further application consequentialupon his original petition. It appears that the priest, rightly orwrongly, claims certain property as his own. The petitionerwishes the District Judge to go into the question of the rightnessof that claim. The learned District Judge has refused, and hasreferred the petitioner to a separate action. 1 think that theDistrict Judge acted with perfect correctness.
Mr. Perera maintains that, inasmuch as all property belongingto the temple vests in the trustees under section 20, there is aconsequential duty upon the incumbent to hand over to the trusteesany such property as may be in his possession, and he pointed to thefact that that duty is emphasized by the criminal remedy affordedby section 29. There may well be such a duty. But I do notthink that is the class of duty referred to in section 30 a (c). Whatis intended by that section is, in my opinion, a specific duty imposedin terms by the statute. The Ordinance is full of provisionsrequiring a number of persons, sometimes a trustee, sometimes adistrict committee, sometimes a member of the district committee,sometimes a person who is neither one nor the other, but a headmanor other official, to do various things for the purpose of the adminis-tration of the Ordinance. I think that the section is intended toassist the persons interested in obtaining compliance with the dutiesimposed by the Ordinance. I do not think that it was intendedto allow a person to come into Court and by a simple applicationobtain from the Judge an order upon any person to discharge aduty which arises out of his position or out of any contract intowhich he may have entered. I think tliat the learned DistrictJudge was perfectly right in referring the. applicant to a specialaction. So far as the incumbent is concerned, he has complied.with the order of the District Judge.
( 115 )
I find nowhere in the Ordinance any provision authorizing orrequiring the District Judge on application to hold an investigationinto the correctness of any return made in answer to his order.Of course, if an incumbent by way of return to the order sent astatement which was obviously not a substantial compliance withthe order and was intended to evade the order, the District Judgewould no doubt require a further return. That is a very differentthing from calling upon him to hold an inquiry into the legal rightsof the parties in informal proceedings. In my opinion, therefore,the appeal should be dismissed* with costs.
Db Sampayo J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
1980.
Bertram
C.T.
Jayawardenev. Terun-nanse .