097-NLR-NLR-V-65-MAHAMADAGALLE-UPANANDA-THERO-et-al.-Appellants-and-DUNUPOTHAGAMA-SOBITHBA-THER.pdf
MaJiamadagaUe Upananda Thero v. Dunupothagama Bobitha Thero
459
1081Present: Sansom, J.s aad T. S. IFora&M®, J.MAHAMADAGALLE UPANANDA THERO et al., Appellants,and DUNUPOTHAGAMA SOBITHA THEKO, Respondents8. G. 436/57—D. O. Kurunegala, 12688
Buddhist ecclesiastical law—Tutor and pupil—Desertion of tutor by pupil—
Forfeiture of pupillary succession.
A right of pupillary succession will be forfeited if the pupil deserts his tutorand the temple the incumbency of which he claims.
On 7th July 1951 the controlling Viharadhipathi of two Viharas robed thelet plaintiff as bis pupil. Immediately, however, after his robing, the 1stplaintiff, who was a minor, deserted his tutor and abandoned the two temples.When the Mahanayake Thero, to whom the tutor had complained on 6thMarch 1953 about the 1st plaintiff’s conduct, called for a report from the 1st plain-tiff’s next friend and a priest, both of whom had sponsored the 1st plaintiff’srobing, he was informed that there was no objection whatever to the tutordiscontinuing his pupil the 1st plaintiff. The Mahanayake Thero accordinglyinformed the Registrar-General, who on 2nd July 1953 amended the declarationof the 1st plaintiff by adding the remark “ Cancelled the pupilship ”. Afterthe tutor died on 11th August 1955 the 1st plaintiff, by his next friend the2nd plaintiff, sued the defendants in the present action, claiming a declarationthat he was the controlling Viharadhipathi of the two Viharas and consequen-tial relief.
Held, that the 1st plaintiff had, by deserting his tutor, forfeited his rightto succeed his tutor. A formal inquiry by the Sangha Sabha was not anessential p ^-requisite to the 1st plaintiff forfeiting his rights. 1
1 (1928) 29 N. L. B. 643.
Thara v.
4 COSAUBONI, J.—MahamadaeatU Upanando
Dunttpotkafatna Sobtifo Thm>
U
A.PPTSAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kurunegala.
B. Wikrcmanayake, Q.G., with G. T. Swneratoickreme, for thePlaintiffs- Appellants.
N. E. Weeraaooria, Q.G., with E. W. Jayetmrdene, Q.G., W. D.Gunasekera and N. B. M. JDaluunxUe, for the 2nd Defendant-Respondent.
Our. adv. vuit.
October 26, 1961. Sajtsoni, J.—
The fir st plaintiff, by hie next friend the second plaintiff', has sued thetwo defendants, claiming a declaration that he is the controlling Viharadi-pathi of the Kovilakanda and Diyabete VihaTas and consequential relief.The two defendants by their answer denied the plaintiff’s claim, and thefirst defendant counter-claimed that he be declared entitled to theincumbency of both Viharas.
After trial, the learned District Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ actionand declared the first defendant the lawful controlling Viharadipathi of thetwo Viharas. While the appeal filed against the judgment was pending,the first defendant died. Mr. Jayewardene indicated to us that since thedispute was mainly between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, theaction might be said to have abated when the first defendant died.Mr. Wikramanayake, however, argued that the action did not abate,because the plaintiffs had sued both defendants and the Court had stillto adjudicate on the dispute between the first plaintiff and the seconddefendant. He argued that he was entitled to a final decision as towhether the first plaintiff was or was not entitled to the declarationclaimed in his plaint. We therefore heard the appeal, and we have nodoubt that any decision we make will bind the present parties.
Medankara Thero was admittedly the controlling Viharadipathi of bothViharas until he died on 11th August, 1955. On 7th July, 1951, he robedthe first plaintiff. On 6tb March, 1953, he petitioned the MahanayakeThero of Malwatte to cancel the registration of the first plaintiff as hispupil. He complained in that petition that the second plaintiff and Kon-wewa Saranankara Thero had, on 7th July, 1951, brought the first plaintiffand another youth to Kovilakanda Tomple and had them robed that dayand gone away with those two pupils. In concluding bis petition he said :
And up to date the said pupils did not live with me in a temple of mineeven for a day. Ido not know where they are residing …. there-fore, I respectfully submit that from today I have discontinued both thepriests and pray that their registration be cancelled. ” The respondentsto the petition were the two Be manor a priests whom be had robed.Medankara Thero repeated his request by his letter dated 29th March,1963.
SANS ONI, J.—Makamadagalle Upananda There v.
Dunupethagama Sobiika Thero
461
The petition was sent to the second plaintiff end Konwewa Sara-nankara Thero by the M&hanayake Thero for their report. They repliedby their letter of 10th April, 1953, stating that the first plaintiff, after therobing, was admitted to a pirivena at Ratmalana to receive his education.They denied the allegation that the two Samanera priests had never stayedin Medankara’s temple even for a day. They ended their reply byinforming the Mahanayake Thero that they had no objection whatever toMedankara discontinuing his pupil the first plaintiff. The other pupilhad, by this date, disrobed himself. The Mahanayake Thero accordinglyinformed the Registrar-General, who on 2nd July 1953 amended thedeclaration of the first plaintiff by adding the remark “ Cancelled thepupilship ”.
It will be observed that neither the second plaintiff nor SaranankaraThero objected to Medankara Thero acting in the way he did. They didnot even ask for an inquiry before action was taken on the petition. It is,therefore, not surprising that no inquiry was, in fact, held. If such aninquiry had ever been contemplated, there would have been nothing toinquire into. In view of the minority of the two respondents to thepetition, and the part alleged to have been played by Saranankara Theroand the second plaintiff in the ceremony ofrobing, it seems reasonable thatthe petition should have been sent to them for a report. Even in thisaction the second plaintiff appears as the next friend of the first plaintiff,and this indicates that they were closely connected in their relations witheach other.
Since the first plaintiff was the only pupil of Medankara, he would havebeen entitled to succeed the latter as Yiharadipathi of the two Viharas ifbe had been his pupil at the time of his death. The main question thatarises on this appeal is whether the first plaintiff was Medankara’s pupilwhen Medankara died, or whether he had forfeited his right to succeedMedankara, as the defendants allege. Several issues were framed at thetrial, amongst them being :
Did the first plaintiff desert the said Medankara Thero and abandonthe Kovilakanda Vihara, or at any time have any connectionwith him or the said Vihara ?
(8) Did the said Medankara Thero disown the first plaintiff ¥
When making his findings on the facts the learned Judge rejected thefirst plaintiff’s evidence. He disbelieved him when he said that he hadstayed in Kovilakanda Vihara and that he was taken by Medankarato Ratmalana pirivena and maintained there by him. He disbelievedhim also when he said that he had visited Kovilakanda Vihara and stayedwith Medankara during the pirivena vacations. He has found that thefirst plaintiff never returned to the Vihara after his robing. He hasheld it proved that the first plaintiff had deserted Medankara and aban-doned the two temples. The evidence certainly supports the findingsof the learned Judge, and no submission that those findings were wrong
2°R 154S0 (1/64)
4628ANS0NI, J.—MahamadngaQ* Upammda Then v.
Dunupothagama Sobi&a Then
was made to us. The question is whether, on those findings, he wasright in holding that the first plaintiff has forfeited his right to succeedMedankara.
It was urged by Mr. Wikramanayake that, on being robed by Medan-kara, the first plaintiff acquired a certain status, and he could not bedeprived of that status by Medankara except upon due inquiry afterproper charges had been framed against him. I have already referredto the reaction of the second plaintiff and Saranankara Thero whenMedankara’s petition was forwarded to them for their report. Evenif the reply they sent was not sufficient to render an inquiry unnecessary,the question arises whether an inquiry was an essential pre-requisite tothe first plaintiff forfeiting his rights. In my view, on the facts of thiscase it was not. We were referred to the Mahavagga which deals with thequalities which a pupil should possess in relation to his tutor. It statesat 1.27.6 : “ The pupil possessed of the following five qualities shouldbe dismissed : if he is wanting in great affection towards his teacher,if he has not much faith in him, if he does not display correct modestytowards him, if he lacks great respect for him, if he does not have muchgoodwill towards him. ”
Whether the tutor who finds his pupil lacking in these qualities haspower to dismiss him of his own motion, or should ask for an inquiryby the Sangha Sabha, does not seem, to me to be the question here.On the learned Judge’s findings the first plaintiff had proved himselfnot only to be wanting in these qualities, but by his conduct in desertingMedankara from the time he was robed until Medankara’s death heclearly forfeited his right to succeed him. In Dammcuratna Unnanse v.Sumangala Unnanse 1, Wood Renton, J. said “ The weight of the experttestimony decidedly supports the view that a right of pupillary succes-sion will be forfeited if the pupil deserts his tutor and the temple theincumbency of which he claims. There is ample evidence in the presentcase justifying the conclusion that such a forfeiture has been incurredby the appellant. ” I think those words may appropriately be used inregard to the present ease. They were quoted with approval in Damma-pala Unnanse v. Sumangala Unnanse * and Mr. Hayley in his book onSinhalese Law and Custom page 567 cites Dammaratna Unnanse v.Sumangala Unnanse 1 as authority for his statement that “ A pupilwho disrobes himself or deserts his tutor, (the italics are mine) forfeitshis right. ” It is of the essence of the relationship between the pupiland his tutor that the pupil should remain under allegianoe to the tutorand in a state of obedience to him. The pupil’s right to succeed is notto be taken as permanently established by the mere fact of bis havingbeen robed by his tutor. A pupil must continue to be obedient to histutor, and if he is disobedient it is inconsistent with his being a pupil inthe Buddhist sense: that was the view expressed by Sri Dharmaramawho gave expert evidence in the case decided by Wood Renton, J.
1 (1910) 14 N. L. R. 400.
* (1939) 41 N. L. S. 235.
Sabaratnam v. Sinnathurai
463
The very word ‘ autevasika * used in the Vinaya to denote a pupil indi-cates that he is one •who is near at hand. Of course, if he ■wishes to resideelsewhere to receive instruction he can do so, but only if his tutor approves.It has been pointed out before that there is strong condemnation of dis-obedience on the part of a pupil to be found in the religious books ; andthe word ‘ obedience ’ is sometimes interpreted to mean ‘ dependence!on the tutor and submission to his guidance. Conduct such as thatdisplayed by the first plaintiff towards Medankara seems amply to meritthe penalty of forfeiture of his rights. His minority will not avail him :he had failed in his primary duty as a pupil, and a status voluntarilyacquired can be voluntarily abandoned.
Although a question of status is involved, I do not think that the parties'when they become tutor and pupil, are irrevocably committed to thatstatus. I do not attach any greater significance to Medankara’s dis-missal of the first plaintiff from his position as pupil than to regard itas a demonstration of his disapproval of the first plaintiff’s conduct.It is open to the Court to hold that the first plaintiff had, by desertingMedankara, forfeited his right to claim to be his pupil. I think thelearned Judge was right in so holding, and I would dismiss this appealwith costs.
T. S. Feenahdo, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.