The English translation of it would be “I hereby inform you to accept the.management of the temple and minister to the religious duties of thedayakayas. Let it be understood that you have the right and power to managethe temple”. Mr. Wimalachandra in support of his contention argued that thetenor of this letter did not show that there was a vacancy in the office of the'Viharadipathi which necessitated such an appointment but it is only areiteration of the existing state of affairs and merely confirms the fact that theplaintiff was entitled to manage the affairs of the temple. I find it difficult toaccept the contention of Mr. Wimalachandra that PI3 is not an appointmentof the plaintiff to be the Viharadipathi of this temple. The function of a
New Law Reports
(1978) Vol. 80 N.L.R.
Viharadipathi of a temple is to manage the temple and he has the right andpower to do so. This right and power are given in P13 to the plaintiff. It istrue that P13 does expressly not affix the label of Viharadipathi to theplaintiff in respect of the rights and powers that are conferred by it. But ifone looks at the true nature of the rights and powers that are granted by P13in favour of the plaintiff it is not possible to resist the conclusion that theMaha Nayake intended by P13 to appoint the plaintiff to perform the dutiesof the Viharadipathi of the temple. I am, therefore, satisfied on a reading ofP13 and the evidence of the Maha Nayake that the appointment wasnecessitated because Dhammasena Thero died and that there was a disputeregarding the temple since the defendant priest did not belong to the sameNikaya.
In construing a document like P13 one must find out the plain intention ofthe person making it from the meaning of the words used though there maynot be the express use of the word “Viharadipathi”. See Jinarathana Them v.
Ratwatte, J. -1 agree.Wanasundera, J. -1 agree.
Appeal allowed.
Y1946) 47 N.L.R. 228.
this context in relation to a temple sufficiently connote the powers and rightsof the Viharadipathi of a temple.
Regarding the evidence of the Maha Nayake under cross-examination thathe did not appoint the plaintiff as Viharadipathi by P13,1 would think that heprobably was having in mind the fact that in P13 there was no reference tothe plaintiff being expressly appointed to the office of Viharadipathi.
Mr. Jayewardene also relied on the maxim “allegans contraria non estaudiendus," namely, that “a man shall not derogate from his own grant”.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the Maha Nayake Thero intended byPI 3 to appoint the plaintiff as Viharadipathi of the temple in question. Theplaintiff therefore succeeds in this appeal.
His appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned DistrictJudge are set aside. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff as prayed for. Theplaintiff will be entitled to costs both here and in the District Court.

Somarathana Them'0. The Sinhala words