M. NANDARAMA, Appellant, and A. RATHNAPALA, Respondent

110-NLR-NLR-V-57-M.-NANDARAMA-Appellant-and-A.-RATHNAPALA-Respondent.pdf

1955Present:Basnayake, A.C.J., and FuIIe, J.
M.NAXDARAJIA, Appellant, and A. RATHAXAPALA, Respondent•S'. C. So—D. C. Malara, 21,12S
Buddhist Ecclesiastical Laic—Viharadhipati—Renunciation of office.
A bhikkhu who is Viharadhipati of a temple is entitled to renounce his officeof Viharadhipati.
Xot only may a pupil who succeeds to the office of Viharadhipati by virtuoof being the senior pupil of his tutor renounce his office, but also a junior pupilnominated by his tutor as his successor is free to renounce his right.
J^LPPEAXr from a judgment of the District Court, Matara.
II. IF. Jayeu-ardene, Q.C., with P. JRanasinghe, for tlic PlaintiflF-JAppeliajit.
N.E. Weerasooria, Q.C., with A. F. Wijemanne, for the Defendant-Jtespondcnt.
-July 12, 1955. Basnayake, A.C.J.—
This is an action by Afalimboda Nandaraiua (hereinafter referred to as3;he appellant), the senior pupil of the late Godagama Jinaratana, againstAkiirugoda Rathanapala (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), the
senior pupil of the late Xlurungasyaye Sumana, praying that lie be declared",the Viharadhipati of .the temple known as Ogaspe Viliare (hereinafter-referred to as Ogaspe)'and that he be placed in possession thereof. The-appellant claims that one Talgahagoda Dhammadara was the original.Viharadhipati of Ogaspe, and Indurukawa Vihare (hereinafter referred to-ns Indurukawa). The former was tlie larger of the two and better endowed,than the latter. Dhammadara liad two pupils, Godagama Jinaratana,.also known as Ehadugoda Jinaratana,. and Murungasyaye Sumana.'Of these two Sumana was the senior, having been ordained on the sameday but before Jinaratana. Dhammadara died on 28th October, 1914,.at Ogaspe. Shortly before his death lie executed a deed Xo..2432 of’2nd April, 101-1. wliich for the purposes of this action is marked PI. Inthat instrument Dhammadara after reciting how he succeeded to theoffice of Viharadhiwnsi of Ogaspe and Indurukawa and expressing liis-desirc to nominate Jinaratana as his successor states—
l: I, the aforesaid Talgahagoda Dhammadara Therunnanse, do-hereby appoint my own pnpil Godagama Jinaratana Unnanseto be the Adikari. after ray demise of Ogaspe Vihare (here follows adescription of the vihare and its grounds) and also of Indurukawa-Vihare (here follows a description of the vihare- and its grounds).Further that the aforesaid Godagama Jinaratana Therunnanse-siiall enjoy the income of the aforesaid premises in accordance withthe rules and regulations laid down in the Yinaya and shall spend,for the repairs, upkeep and improvements of the aforesaid Vi hares jshould assist who is presently my pupil Murungasyaye Sumana-UimaiKS to prosecute his studies financially ; and also permit himto reside at Ogaspe Temple
Dhammadara died on 28th October,. 1914.. Immediately after Jiis-dcath disputes arose between Jinaratana and Sumana. Parties interestedin the welfare of the temple appear to have brought about a settlement-of those disputes. That settlement is recorded in the document Dll-whic-h is set out below
The writing attaches to the list bearing the date 1 Lth Xovcmbcr.1914 ”.
On the 23rd January, 1915, at Ogaspe Vihare, the. trustees of"the said Viliare and D. C. Wiratunga Ralahamy, President of theDistrict Committee, having met the dispute that existed betweenMurungasvaye Sumana Therunnanse and Ehadugoda JinaratanaTherunnanse was settled there :.
Muruhgasyaye Sumana Therunnanse shall reside and be in chargeof Ogaspe Vihare.
Ehadugoda Therunnanse shall reside and be in charge of Induru-kawa Vihare.
. That- the priests resident thereon shall have the- right to makeuse of the produce and income of the.said two.Vihares in a reasonable^
manner.
That 3Iurungasyaye Somalia Therunnanse as chief shall la theknowing of the trustee in charge of the vihare protect the goods etc.mentioned in this list'' '
In derogation of the settlement of 23rd January, 1915, and withoutmaking even a reference to it, Jinaratana by a deed dated 6th Xovembcr,1915, appointedMunamalpe Pemananda anotlier pupil of Dhammadara tomanage Indurukawa claiming that he did so because it was difficult tomanage both Ogaspc and Indurukawa. After reciting' the particulars-in PI and expressing Jinaratana's desire to appoint Pemananda asYiharadhiwasi of Indurukawa, the instrument proceeds as follows :
“I, the aforesaid Godagama Jinaratana Therunnanse because of'the right devolved on me by the aforesaid deed Xo. 2432 and onbehalf of the person who assigned that right and on behalf of myself'who exercise it do hereby appoint the aforesaid Munamalpe Pema-nanda Therunnanse to carry on the management and administration-subject to and in accordance with tho conditions and in the manner'laid down in the aforesaid document of the premises called andknown as Indurukawa Yiharastana and all fruit trees, image house,residing premises etc. appertaining thereto and to be the chief incum-bent of the aforesaid Indurukawa Vihare (here follows a statementof the boundaries) ”.
Thereafter, Jinaratana continued to live at Indurukawa and Sumsnaat Ogaspc. .Santana died in 1927 aged 50 and the respondent, fits pupilssucceeded to the management of Ogaspc. Some time after Sumana’sdeath, Jinaratana who was living at Indurukawa came to reside at Ogaspeand continued to live there without any objection from the respondenttill his death on 9th Xovembcr, 1949, at the age of 11. It is allegedthat Jinaratana left Indurukawa after the death of Sumana in order to-escape ill-treatment by Pemananda, to whom he had in 1915, by the deedabove referred to transferied the management of that temple.
The learned District Judge, after examining the evidence both oral-and documentary, dismissed the appellant’s action holding that fromthe time of the death of Dhammadara, Sumana had acted as Viharadhi-pati of Ogaspe and that .Jinaratana, when he entered into the agreement-D11, waived and abandoned whatever rights lie got on PI to Ogaspe andthat since the death of Sumana the respondent has acted as the Vihara-dhipati of that Vihare.
The present appeal is from that decision. Learned Counsel for theappellant has argued with force that under our law according to the ruleof sissyanu sissy a pa ram pnraica the senior pupil succeeds the tutor unlessthe tutor nominates another pupil to succeed him and that where there is anomination by the tutor the co-pupils have no power to vary that nomi-nation, even with the consent of the nominated pupil. While conceding"that a pupil who succeeds to the office of Viharadhipati by virtue of being'the senior pupil of his tutor may renounce his office,- learned Counselcontended that a pupil nominated by his tutor as his successor was notfree to renounce his right-..
Learned Counsel also further contended that Dll is of no:effect in laweven though Jinaratana had consented to it and did- not operate as a-variation of the nomination made bjr Dhammadara.
Xonc of the authorities cited by Counsel support the proposition hewas seeking to establish. There is nothing in the Vinaya or the decisions
of tins Court which forbids a bhikkhu from renouncing his right to the
.management of a viliare. .. -" –
To hold that a bhikkhu is not free to renounce the office of Y’iharadlu-■ pati under any circumstances and that he is bound to hold that officewhether he likes it or not would be going counter to the fundamental.concepts of the Vinaya.
It would be appropriate in this connexion to refer to the words of.■Bertram C.J. in the case of Sara?iantu<.-. Unnanse v. Indajoli Unnanse “ But when we are dealing with ecclesiastical property, a region in whichwe are enforcing simply the ecclesiastical law based upon the original.authoritative texts developed by religious customs, we ought not to recog-nize claims and transactions which are in their terms or in their nature
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of those texts and those- customs ”. Under our law a person is free to renounce a right
Upon Jinaratana’s renunciation of his right to Ogaspe even if the docu-imenfc Dll did not mention Sumana as the Viharadhipati of that tcmniehe"would, by virtue of his being Dhammadara’s senior pupil, have becomethe Viharadhipati as .Tinaratana had no pupils at that time.
Jinaratana’s renunciation of whatever rights he had to Ogaspe byvirtue of PI is valid not only according to ecclesiastical law but also.according to the common law..
The view we have taken is in accord with the decision of this Court-in the case of Punnananda v. IVeltviliye Soratha 3.
We therefore hold that Jinarainna’s surrender of whatever rights he• obtained under the deed executed by his tutor Dhammadara was valid.arid effectual and that as Jinaratana had no pupil at the time, Sumanaas the senior pupil of Dhammadara rightfully became Viharadhipatiof Ogaspe and that the respondent as the pupil of Sumana was entitled to'be Viharadhipati of that Viliare.
There were two other mat tors which were raised at the trial. They arc—
whether the decree in 0. R. MataraNo. 13,99S, an action by Sumana
against Don Thcdias Wimalagunasckera, trustee of Ogaspe,and Jinaratana claiming the produce of certain lands and formaintenance, operated as res judicata between the appellantand the respondent, and,
whether the appellant was barred by the Prescription Ordinance
from maintaining this action.
In the matter referred to at (a) above, Wimalagunasckera filed answer•that Jinaratana was the chief incumbent of the temple and was in posses-sion of the property. The case was settled by consent. The material»part of flic decree reads—
-“ It is ordered and decreed of consent that the plaintiff be and
he is hereby declared the chief incumbent of Ogaspe Viliare at. Malimbodn ”.-.-
The learned District Judge held that the decree operated as “ resjudicata between the appellant and the respondent.
– On the' question of. prescription the learned District Judge held thatthe appellant’s action was barred by prescription in view of the decisionof this Court in the case of Premaratne v. Indasara 1. As we have heldthat Siima.na was the rightful Viharadhipati of Ogaspe the questions of'res judicata and prescription need not be discussed for the purposes of this-Judgment.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Pi-li.e, J.—I agree.
Appeal dism isset..