PANDITHA WATUGEDERA AMARASEEHA THERO, Appellant, and TITTAGALLE SASANATILAKE TH

070-NLR-NLR-V-59-PANDITHA-WATUGEDERA-AMARASEEHA-THERO-Appellant-and-TITTAGALLE-SASANATILAKE-TH.pdf

PandUhn Watugedcra Amarasccha Thcro t>. Titlagallc Sasanatilake Thcro 2S9
1957 Present :Basnayake, C.J., Pulle, J., and K. D. de Silva, J.
PANDITHA WATUGEDERA AAIARASEEHA THERO,Appellant, and TITTAGALLE SASANATILAKETHERO, RespondentS. G. 47S—D. G. Balapiliya, 2’28jL
Buddhist ecclesiastical law—Viharadhipathi—Succession to office—Renunciationof right by senior pupils—Right of a junior pupil to succeed—Action for incum-bency—Prescription—Quantum of evidence—Period of limitation—PrescriptionOrdinance {Cap. 55), ss. 3, 10—Construction of a Sinhalese document—OfficialLanguage Act, Ho. 33 of 1956, s. 2.
Tho viharadhipathi of a. Buddhist tomplc had five pupils. Tho succossion totho incumbency was governed by tho rulo of sisyanusisya paramparawa. Afterthe viharadhipathi died, tho first two pupils, who had no pupils of their own,formally proposed and seconded a resolution, at a meeting of the Sangha Sabha,that the third pupil in order of seniority bo placed in charge of the temple.Tho resolution was passed unanimously by tho assembled Sangha.
Held, that it was correct to infer from the passing of tho resolution thatthe first two pupils renounced their respective claims to tho temple and that thethird pupil in order of seniority was the de jure viharadhipathi.
Sinco it is open to a person who has usurped the office of Viharadhipathito exclude the lawful holder for the rost of his lifo by pleading section 10 of thoPrescription Ordinnnco, it is imperative that a plea of prescription should becarefully scrutinized and that such a plea should bo upheld only upon theclearest evidence of tho denial of the right of the de jure incumbent to exercisehis office. Tho circumstance that a Viharadhipathi ncquicsced in mombers ofa davaka sabha addressing another bhikkhu residing in tho same temple asthe Viharadhipathi cannot bo construed as a continuing chnllengo to his own' title to tho office.•
Per Basxavake, C.J.—Quaere-, whether the period of limitation in respectof an action to have a person declared entitled to tho incumbency of a Buddhisttemplo is governed by section 10, rather than by section 3, of the ProscriptionOrdinance.
Pet K. D. de Silva, J.-—By-virtue of section 2 of tho Official hanguago■ Act Ko. 33 of lOcfi, it is iioav open to a Judge to import his own knowledge of(ho Sinhalese language in construing a document drawn up in Sinhalese.Francisco v. Swadeshi Industrial- lYorks Lid. (IP51)53 N, B. It. 170,
distinguished,
A.
x^-PPEAJL from a judgment of the District Court, Balapitiya.
B. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with D. S. Jayawickrenie, Q.G., andJ. A. D. de Silva, for the plaintiff-appellant..
II. A. Koattegoda, with R. D. B. Jayasekerd, for the defendant-respondent.'.-■ -■–
. IQiit. adp. vull. ,
– 13Lix— V '
2J. N. B 2696—1.593 (3/5S),
290 BASNAYAK.E, C.J.—Panditha Watugedera Amaraseeha Thero v.
Tillagalle Sasanatilake Thero.
December 20, 1957. Basnayake, C.J.—.
I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment prepared by mybrother Pulle, and I agree that this appeal shoud be allowed, that theplaintiff should be declared viharadhipati of the temple referred to in theplaint (hereinafter referred to As Sanghatissarama), and that thedefendant should be ejected therefrom. I also agree that the appellantshould receive his costs and that the costs of trial should be divided.
The learned District Judge has held that the plaintiff’s tutor Dham-masiri Tissa was the rightful viharadhipati of this temple. His pupilsin order of seniority are Aggawansa, Gnanawansa, Amaraseeha the plain-tiff, and two others. Aggawansa is no longer in the Order as he disrobedin 1915. When Dhammasiri died in 1937 without nominating hissuccessor it was Aggawansa the senior pupil who should have succeededhim. But it appears from the document P10 that both ho and the nextsenior pupil Gnanawansa renounced their right. There is no evidencethat either of them had any pupils at that time. I therefore express noopinion on the effect of the renunciation if either Aggawansa orGnanawansa had pupils.
The question that arises for decision is whether the plaintiff, the thirdpupil in order of seniority, was entitled to succeed on the renunciationof the succession by the first two pupils who had no pupils of their own.The law on this subject is by no means clear. But in the instant casethe fact that the resolution to place the plaintiff in charge of Sanghatis-sarama ims proposed by Aggawansa and seconded by Gnanawansa andadopted nemiiie contradicente by the assembled Sangha, removes alldifficulties that would otherwise have arisen. I have no doubt that onthe facts of this case the plaintiff is the de jure viharadhipati of Sangha-tissarama. In my opinion it is correct to infer from the fact that Agga-wansa proposed and Gnanawansa seconded the resolution that theyrenounced their rights.
The defendant, who is a pupil of Kamburugamuwe Kusalagnana, aco-pupil of Dhammasiri, having come to the temple on an invitation ofthe dayakas to spend his was (Qd) did not go back to his temple at theend of the period of zoos (OzS). The learned District Judge finds thathe remained uath Dhammasiri’s permission. He appears to have done agreat deal to improve the temple with the assistance of the dayakas.Having entered the temple with the plaintiff’s tutor’s permission andcontinued to possess on that basis, the defendant cannot decide withhimself to possess on some other basis. Nemo sibi causam possessionismulare potest.. .
The fact that a bhikkhu takes an active interest in the religious andother activities of a temple gives him no right to be viharadhipati evenif his activities extend over a long period of time, nor is ho entitled inlaw to base a claim to the temple on the ground that he has helped toimprove it. A de jure viharadhipati does not lose his rights merely be-cause he has expressly or impliedly permitted another to occupy his temple
BAS^AYAKJE, C. j.—Panditha Watugedera Ainarasceha Thero v. 29 i
Tittagalle Sasanatilake Thero
and take an active interest in its maintenance and improvement. Thereis a further circumstance that favours the plaintiff and it is the fact thatthe defendant, being a pupil of Kusalagnana, is entitled to reside in thetemple so long as he conducts himself properly and submits himself tothe authority and control of the de jure viliaradhipati.
There is no obligation on a de jure viharadhipati to institute legal pro-ceedings for the indication of his right each time a pretender describeshimself as viharadhipati of his temple or cauises his lay supporters todescribe him as such. Oral or written assertions by a pretender and hislay supporters, however persistent or long standing, do not affect theright of the de jure viharadhipati. There must be definite evidence thatthe pretender’s conduct was such as to be entirely incompatible with theexistence of any right whatsoever in the dejure viharadhipati and to leaveno room for doubt as to the denial of his rights..
The learned District Judge has held that the document D7 has theeffect of giving rise to a cause of action against the defendant. Thatdocument reads as follows :—
GENERAL INVITATIONThe offering to the Maha Sangha of the new Danasala constructedunder the leadership of Paulus Dharmasena Thenuwara MudalaliMahatmaya in the Aramaya managed by the Sri SanghatissaramaWardena Samitiya and according to the advice of Rev. WatugederaSanghatissaramadlnpathi Tittagalle Sasanatilake and the placing ofdoor-frames of the Sanghawasa which is being newly constructed willoccur ceremoniously at auspicious time of 2.5 p.m. on the 22nd Sundayof tliis month.
As on that day at 3 p.m. there ivill be a meeting presided over byMr. P. Diamond de Silva, President, Village Committee, Ambalangoda,and as on that night there will be a Pirith Ceremony by the Priestsin the new Dana Sala and on the following day dana will be offeredin the morning as well as at noon ….
You are invited with respect to the Sasana to come to our Siri San-ghatissaramaya and to take part in the said ceremony to help in thenew undertaking and to acquire heavenly bliss.
Please send to the following address the donations etc. sent in thisconnection.
Desiring progress of Sasana.
Address : Paulus Dharmasena Thenuwara
(Secretary Sanghawasa Committee)
Watugedera South' Ambalangoda1945.7.12.
292
BASXAYAIvE C.J.—Pdndilha W'alugzdefa Anlaraseciia Thefo V,TiltagaUe Sa sanalilake Thero
Vaidyacliariya T. A. Xsarishamy(Person in charge Sri Sanghatissaramaya)T. J. do Silva—PresidentT. V. A. Ondiris Silva—SecretaryT. A. Luwis Singho—Treasurer
Mahinda Press, Ambalangoda.
.SEALIllegible
Sangliatissa Samitiya-Watugedera South
Ambalangoda
Pees Re. 1 /.
I do not think that the above document in any way affects the plaintiff’srights.
Beforo the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance of 1931 all property-movable or immovable belonging to a templo and all rents and profitsthereof vested in the laj1" trustee. (Section 20 of the Buddhist Tempora-lities Ordinance, Ko. S of 1905, now repealed.) The function of themaintenance and upkeep of the temple and its priests was also vested,in the lay trustee.
The present Ordinance made a radical change in this respect and vestedthe management of the proporty belonging to ever3' temple exemptedfrom the operation of sc-cton 4 (1) but not oxempted from the operationof the entire Ordinance in the viharadhipati of the temple who is calledthe “ controlling viharadhipati ” for the purposes of the Ordinance..In the instant caso the plaintiff states that Sanghatissarama is oxempted.from the operation of section 4 (1) of the Ordinance and that ho is its-controlling viharadhipati.
As the learned District Judge has decided against tho plaintiff on'the ground of prescription I think I should say a word on the periodof limitation Tho earlier cases hold that an action to have a persondeclared entitled to tho incumbency of a temple is barred by tho lapseof three years on the ground that such an action is an action for thodeclaration of a status, a class of action for which the PrescriptionOrdinance makes no express provision.
The plaintiff’s action is in effect an action, for not only a declarationof status, but also for the recovery of tlio temple and its property, for,his pra3'er is that the defendant be ejected from tho premises describedin the Schedulo to the plaint.-
It would therefore not be correct to treat the instant caso as an actionfor declaration of a status alone. The period of prescription in respectof actions for tho purpose of being quieted in possession of lands or
293T
PULLE, J. —Pandilha Watugedero Amaraseeha Thcro v.
Tittngalle Sasanatilake Thero _
other immovable property, or to prevent encroachment or usurpationthereof, or to establish a claim in any other manner to land or propertyis governed by section 3 and not by section 10 of the Prescription Ordi-nance. The decisions of tin's Court1 which hold that an action for anincumbency of a temple, being an action for a declaration of a status,is barred by the lapse of t liree years from the date when the cause of actionaroso, may have to be re-examined in a suitable case in the light of thealtored rights of a viharadliipati who is now empowered to sue and besued as the person in whom the management of the property belongingto a temple is vested.
POLLE, J.’
The appellant in this case is the plaintiff. He is a Buddhist monk bythe name of Pandit-ha Watugedera Amaraseeha Thcro residing at SriParanianancla It La ha Vihare of Gallo, He filed two plaints, the first on10th October, 1049, and an amended one on 5th September, 1950. Heclaimed as against the defendant, Tittngalle Sasanatilake Thero, adeclaration that he is the Viharadhipathi of a temple called Sangatissa-raraaya standing on the land Bogaliawatt-a described in the schedule tothe plaint. After a trial lasting thirteen da3rs, in the course of which alarge volume of oral and documentary evidence was taken, the learnedDistrict Judge dismissed the action and ordered the plaintiff to pay halfthe costs of the defendant-. He came to the finding that under tho ruleof sisiyanu sisij'a paramparawa a senior co-pupil of the plaintiff namedGnanawansa Thero was the lawful Viharadhipathi of the temple. Thisfinding, if correct-, was sufficient to dispose of the plaintiff’s claim. Howent on further to hold that his claim was prescribed. The questionswe have to determine are first, whether the learned Judge was wrong inholding that the plaintiff was not the dejure Viharadhipathi, and secondlywhether the plaintiff'saction is prescribed, in the event of our holding that,at the date of action, the Viharadhipathi was not Gnanawansa Therobut the plaintiff.
The name Sangntissaramaya was given to the temple in question toperpetuate the memory of a monk called JCoggala Sanghatissa Therowho died in 190S. His chief pupil was Batuwit-a Dhammasiri Therowho succeeded to the incumbency on the death of his tutor. Sanghatissa ■was also the incumbent of Paranianancla Vihare of Galte. A large part ofthe evidence was devoted to the question as to what rule of successiongoverned the Viharadliipatliiship of Paramananda Vihare. Thodefendant was the pupil of one Kamburugamuwe Kusalagnana Therowho himself was a pupil of Sanghatissa and, therefore, a co-pupil of'Dharmasiri.' Galle lie vat a Thero was also ono of the pupils of Sa-ngha-tissa. Even after this action was filed deeds were executed relating totho incumbency of Paramananda Vihare. By DIO of 2nd February,.
1950, Gnanawansa purported to appoint the plaintiff as the incumbentof that temple. This was revoked shortly after by Dll of 12t-h March,
1950, and on the same day, by P19, an agreement was entered into
•1 (191G) 3 O. It'. B. 198
(1927) 2S IV. Is. B. 477-(1933) 40 TV. L. B. 235.
2*J. N. D 2G9G (3/5S)
294
PUXLE, J.—PandiOuj IValitgedera Amaraseeha Thcro v.
Tittagalle Sasanatilake Thero
between 11 priests and 25 laymen fixing the mode of succession to Para-mananda Vihare after the death of the last incumbent Galle Revatawhich occurred on 3rd January, 1950. According to P16 the successorto Revata was Kusalagnana. It is incredible that all the evidenceconcerning Paramananda Vihare was necessary to throw light on howthe succession to Sangatissaramaya is governed for the simple reasonthat from an early stage of the trial it was understood that the Viharadhi-pathiship of Sangatissaramaya was to be determined by the applicationof the rule of sisiyanu sisiya paramparawa and not according to Kathi-kawa P2 compiled by Sanghatissa laying down, inter alia, what may becalled the Paramananda rule of succession.
The first and important question then is a simple one. Dhammasiriwas unquestionably the Viharadhipathi of Sangatissaramaj-a. Hehad five pupils at the time of his death on 2Sth August, 1937. Theywere Aggawansa, Gnanavansa, the plaintiff and two others. Aggawansain 1945 reverted to lay life. The plaintiff alleges that both Aggawansaand Gnanawansa formally, abandoned their rights to the incumbency ofthe temple on the 29th September, 1937, as evidenced by the documentP10. Was there such an abandonment ? If so, then the plaintiff wasat the date of action the de jure Viharadhipathi. Then the remainingquestion would be, has the defendant discharged the burden resting onhim to prove that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by section 10 of thePrescription Ordinance ?•
The oral evidence called in the case was conflicting and partisan incharacter. Beyond the findings of the trial Judge it is not possible tomake a fresh appraisement of that evidence. The arguments in appealwere not directed on either side to convince us that any oral evidencerejected ought to have been accepted.
In regard to the circumstances under which the defendant and histutor Kusalagnana came to reside at Sangatissaramaya the trial Judgeexpresses his findings as follows :
“ I accept the evidence led for the plaintiff mainly of M. D. O. deSilva and Ariyasena that Kusalagnana came to the Temple in questionfor the fust time at the instance of the Samithij'a through the goodoffices of Dhammasiri and at that stage Dhammasiri was recognized asthe Viharadhipathi of this temple. For the next Vaa Season Ariyasenaappears to have got down Rev. Sasanatilake on the suggestion of Ku-salagnana lxis tutor—D20, and when Sasanatilake arrived Kusalagnanahad gone away asking Iiim to look after the temple. Although thedefendant tries to make out that Kusalagnana was the Viharadhi-pathi and that he appointed him his successor and left the Temple, Iam not at all satisfied that this was so. In my view, Kusalagnana didnot function as Viharadhipathi, and therefore, he could not have -appointed the defendant as the Viharadhipathi. The circumstancesshow that Dhammasiri had approved of the defendant being in chargeof this Temple. . Therefore, the question arises as to whether, thedefendant having taken charge of the temple with the leave and licenceof Dhammasiri, he could now allege that the claim of the plaintiff isprescribed. ”
PUX.I/E, J.—Pandilhn Watugedera Amaraseeha Thero v.
TiUagalle Sasanatilakc Thcro„
295
On this finding the claim of the defendant to be the lawful incumbentof Sangatissaramaya by succession from Kusalagnana or otherwisefails completely. TJp to the time of his death Dhammasiri was theViharadhipatki of the temple and according to the rule of pupillarysuccession the Viharadhipathiship vested in Aggawansa and, as statedbefore, the finding is that as this monk disrobed himself in 1945 the dejure Viharadhipathi at the date of action would have been Gnanawansa.Of the grounds on which the plaintiff put forward his claim at the trialthat he became the Viharadhipathi only one was pressed before'us bythe learned counsel who appeared for him, namely, that in 1937 bothAggawansa and Gnanawansa abandoned their rights and the succession',therefore, devolved on the plaintiff. This contention rests principallyon the interpretation of,the document P10 drawn up at a meeting ofthe Sangha Sabha on the 29th September, 1937, the occasion being thealms-giving hold a month after the death of Dhammasiri.
• At this meeting 20 monks were present. Among them were Kusala-gnana, Aggaw ansa, Gnanawansa, the plaintiff and one of the two re-maining co-pupils of the plaintiff named ICotmale Amarawansa. Thetranslation of the minutes submitted at the trial embodying the decisiontaken at the meeting reads :
“ On the two resolutions moved by Bambarende Aggawansa Sthaviraand Bambarende Gnanawansa SthaviraI goods and property men-
tioned at beginning of this list and which were under control of the lateDhammasiri Hayake Malia Sthavira were entrusted to WatugederaAmaraseeha Sthavira for proper control according to Dharraa andVinaja, by the unanimous vote of the Sabha mentioned above. ”
The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the decision did not amountto an appointment of the plaintiff as the Viharadhipathi by the SanghaSabha. This view was not canvassed as the only interpretation whichappellant’s counsel sought to place on it was that there was a formal aban-donment, before a solemn assembly of monks, by Aggawansa and Gnana-wansa of their rights to the incumbency. A theory which appeared tofind favour with the Judge was that one Galle Janananda who succeededto the incumbency of Paramananda Vihare on the death of Sanghatissa in190S was alive but very ill in 1937 and it was possible that the “ goods andproperty ” referred to in P10 were entrusted to the plaintiff to be lookedafter by him. If as learned counsel for the defendant contended before usthat the property consisted of some pieces of furniture mentioned in theminute book P9, it is singularly odd that a solemn assembly was called forthe purpose of handing them over. It is stranger still that the personselected was one who, by common consent, was of a scholarly dispositionpursuing his studies at well known places of learning. There were othersin the line of siiccession according to the ICathikawa P2 to whom the“ goods and property ” referred to in P10 could have been entrusted. Inthe course of the argument my brother De Silva expressed a doubt as tothe correctness of the translation of the resolution. He suggested atranslation which was acceptable to both sides and it reads :.-
“ On a resolution proposed and seconded by Bambarende AggawansaSthavira and Bambarende Gnanawansa Sthavira respectively Watugedera
296PULLE, J.—Panditha Watugedera Arr-arasccha Thero v.•
■Tillngalle Sasanalilakc Thero
Amaraseeha St-havira was appointed by the unanimous vote of the Sabha,for the purpose of the complete management, in accordance with theDharma and Vinaya of the “ garu lahu ” property which had been managedby the late Dhammasiri Naj-ako Maha Stbavira mentioned at thebeginning of the listAt this time what was the "garu lahu" property-,’of
Dhammasiri ? Whatever was the true rule of succession to the Paranta-nanda Vihare, when Sangatissa died it was not his pupil Dhammasiri whosucceeded him as Viharadhipathi of Paramananda Vihare, but Jananaridaa co-pupil of Sangatissa, and according to the evidence he survived Dham-masiri. The resolution can only mean that Aggawansa and Gnanawansawho sponsored the resolution abandoned their rights to succeed Dhamma-siri as Viharadhipathi of Sangatissaramaya. In fairness to the learnedtrial Judge I ought to state that if he had before him an accurate trans-lation of the resolution he might have come to a different conclusion ’ohthe submission addressed to him that there was an abandonment by tlve,two senior pupils of their rights to the temple. That neither Aggawarisanor Gnanawansa lay claim at any time to the temple is a circumstancethat tells in favour of the plaintiff.: –
According to the plaintiff his cause of action arose in 194S when the’defendant broke down two walls of the avasa and cut down some jaktrees in 1949 standing on the temple land. A complaint was made onthe 19th April, 1949, to the village hcadnian regarding the cutting downof the jak trees. I have no doubt that the defendant did these acts ingood faith but it is significant that when tlio headman questioned thedefondant the latter said that Sangafcinsaramaya was sanghika propertyand that he and tho plaintiff had the same rights—vide P 15.
The trial Judge held against the plaintiff on the issue of prescriptionmainly for the reason that the defendant had been described in somedocuments as the aclhipathi of Sangatissaramaya. Do and DG are invi-tations addressed to the defendant to attend functions at temples. Heis called “ Tittagalle Sasanatilake Istavirayan Wahanse, Siri Snngatissa-ramadhipathi ”. D7 is a. general invitation sent out in 1945 by a Sangha-wasa Committee in connexion with the placing of door frames in tire templein question. The defendant is described therein also as Sangatissa- -mmadhipathi. We are not by any means disposed to infer that thecalling of the defendant by a title of dignity, appropriate in the case of aperson who to all outward appearances was managing a temple in the wayan incumbent would, amounted to a challenge of plaintiff’s title. Mem-bers of a dayaka sabha cannot by calling a monk resident in a temple“ viharadhipathi ” create a cause of action for another who is the laudulincumbent. It is only proper that a charitable trust should not be adminis-tered by any person other than the trustee lawfully entitled to exercisethat office. It so happens in view of the rulings given by t-liis court thatit is open to a person who has usurped the office of " iharadhipathi toexclude the lawful holder for the rest- of his life by pleading section 10of the Prescription Ordinance:That being so it is imperative that a
plea of prescription should be carefully scrutinized and that such a pleashould be upheld only upon the clearest- evidence of the denial of the righ^f the dc jure incumbent to exercise his office. The circumstance that the
R- D. DE SILVA, J.—Panditha H'atugedera Amarasceha Thero v. 297
Titlag'ille Sasanatiiake Thero
plaintiff acquiesced.in otlicrs calJiiig tiie defendant the Viharndhipathi of•Sangatissaramaya cannot be construed as a continuing challenge ofplaintiff's title to the office of Yiliaradliipathi.–
I would set aside the decree appealed from and direct that a decree beentered declaring the plaintiff the Viharadhipathi of Sangatissaramayaand directing that the defendant be ejected from the temple but withoutprejudice to his rights to reside therein as a pupil of Kusalagnana Thero.The plaintiff will be entitled to the costs of appeal.
To a large extent the plaintiff must take the blame for prolonging thetrial by introducing topics remotely relevant, if at all, to the basic issuesin the case. In my opinion each party should bear his costs in theDistrict Court.
K. D. de Silva, J.—
I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother PuLIewith which I am in entire agreement.
The learned District Judge has held that the 1st Yiliaradliipathi of thistemple was Sanghatissa Thero and that on his death his senior pupilDhammasiri Thero succeeded to that office in accordance with the ruleof succession known as “ sisjanusisya paramparawa ”. .Tliis finding isnot canvassed in appeal by either party.
This Court has consistently interpreted the word “ sisyanusis3ra ” tomean “ from pupil to pupil ”. That is to say on the death of the 1stYiliaradliipathi he is succeeded by his senior pupil who in turn is succeed-ed by his own senior pupil and the succession continues in that manneras long as each succeeding Yiliaradliipathi leaves a pupil or pupils. It isonly when a Viharadhipathi dies without leaving pupils that the succes-sion devolves on his collaterals. If I may venture to say so, I doubt thecorrectness of this interpretation. “ Sisyanusisya ” consists of twowords, namely, "Sisya” and “Anusisya”. By the word “ Anusisya ” ismeant a “ co-pupil ”. So that according to “ sisyanusisya paramparawa”when a Yiliaradliipathi dies he should be succeeded by his co-pupil, if any,and not by his own pupil ; otherwise no significance would be attached tothe word “Anusisya”. Such succession would be consonant with the 'spirit of the Buddhist religion which insists on reverence and due respectbeing paid to the senior monk by his junior. VTiat passes off as*
“ sisyanusisya paramparawa ” today is in reality “ sisj'a paramparawa ”which means succession from pupil to pupil. But as tin's interpretationhas been long established and consistently recognized by our Courtsit is too late in the' day to follow a different interpretation in keepingwith the correct meaning of the words which describe, the form ofsuccession hi question..•
Dhammasiri Thero left five pupils. Of these the first three in order ofseniority were Aggawansa, Gnanawansa and Amaraseeha, the plaintiff.Thus on the death of Dhammasiri in the year 1937 the senior pupilAggawansa was entitled to succeed him as Viharadhipathi and when the
298
K. D. DE SILVA, J.—Randilha Walugedera Amarasccha Thcro v.
Tittagalle Sasanatilake Thera
latter disrobed himself in the year 1945 the de jure Viharadhipathiwould be Gnanawansa. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff thatboth Aggawansa and Gnanawansa abandoned their rights to this templeon the death of their tutor. If that contention is correct the plaintiffwould become the de jure Viharadhipathi. That Aggawansa andGnanawansa abandoned their claims to this temple is supported by theevidence of the plaintiff and Gnanawansa himself. Their testimony onthis point is confirmed by the resolution P10 passed unanimously at ameeting of the Sangha Sabha held on September 29, 1937. This resolu-tion which is in Sinhalese was proposed by Aggawansa and seconded byGnanawansa. I have examined the original resolution very carefully andI find that its English translation submitted to Court is clearly wrong.In Francisco v. Stvcdcshi Industrial Works Ltd.1 which was decided in theyear 1951 it was held that it was wTong for a Judge, in the case of a docu-ment in a language other than English, to import his omi knowledge of thelanguage in construing tho document. But that view was not adheredto in the later case—Dhammavisuddhi Thero et at. v. DhammadassiThero.2 Apart from that, the passing of the Official Language Act No. 3 Jof 1956 has completely altered the position. Section 2 of that Act pro-vides that the Sinhala language shall be the one official language of Ceylon.Therefore now it is quite open to a Judge to construe a document drawnup in Sinhalese. I would translate the resolution P10 to read as follows :—
" On a resolution proposed and seconded by Bainbarende AggawansaSthavira and Bambarende Gnanawansa Sthavira respectively Watu-gedera Amaraseeha Sthavira was appointed by the unanimous vote ofthe Sabha, for the purpose of the complete management, in accordancewith the Dharma and Vinaya of the “ garu lahu ” property which hadbeen managed by the late Dhammasiri Nayake Maha Sthavira men-tioned at the beginning of the list. ”
“ Garu ” property or “garu badu ” consists of five categories. Theyare :—
Monasteries (aramayas) and lands suitable for monasteries.
Vihares and lands suitable for vihares.•
Beds, chairs, mattresses and pillows.
Vessels made of metal axes, spades etc.
Ropes made of creepers, bamboo, coarse grass, reeds, wooden
goods and clay goods.
“ Lahu ” property or “ Lahu badu ” are movables which are not ofgreat value.
Therefore it is clear from the resolution P10 that the plaintiff was en-trusted with tho full managemont of all the proporty both movable andimmovable which had been undor the control of his tutor Dhammasiri.Gnanawansa stated in his evidence that after tho death of his tutor, ho,plaintiff and Aggawansa " discussed about the carrying on of tho affairsof Sangatissaramaya ”. Roferring to this resolution ho stated “ that
i (1051) 53 A L. R. 179.1 (1955) 57 .V. L. R. 469.
BASYAYAKE, C.J.—The Queen v. Mudalihamy
299‘
includes the-Viharadhipatlnship also”. It is significant to note that-after the death of Dhammasiri neither Aggawansa nor Gnanawansa-had anything to do with this temple. The only reasonable inference that-one can draw from the passing of the resolution P10 is that Aggawansaand Gnanawansa abandoned their respective claims to this temple. There-fore the plaintiff must be regarded as the de jure Viharadhipathi of Sanga-tissaramaya.
For the reasons given by my brother Pulle lam satisfied that the defen-dant has failed to establish that the plaintiff’s action has been prescribed-
Appeal dlloioedr