003-NLR-NLR-V-48-PUNCHIRALA-Appellant-and-DHARMANANDA-THERO-Respondent.pdf
Punchirala v. Dharmananda Thero.
11
1946Present: Canekeratne J.PUNCHIRALA, Appellant, and DHARMANANDA THERO,Respondent.162—iC. R. Matale, 7,379
.Buddhist Law—Controlling viharadhipati of temple—Rules for appointmentof successor—Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, ss. 3, 4.
The plaintiff was not in the line of pupillary succession from theoriginal incumbent of Mailapitiya Vihare, neither was he a pupil of thelast incumbent. The last incumbent had placed the plaintiff in chargeof the temple and disrobed himself.
Held, that the plaintiff had no right to maintain an action fordeclaration of title to property belonging to the temple.
* [1909) 12 N. L. R. at p. 355.* (1909) 13 N. I,. R. at p. 40.
12
CANEKERATNE J.—Punchirala v. Dharmananda Thero.
J^PPEAL, from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Matale.
P. J. KurukvXasoorvya (with him S. R. Wijayatilake), for thedefendant, appellant.
B. Wikramanayake (with him Vernon Wijetunge), for the plaintiff,respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 29, 1946. Canekeratne J.—
This appeal arises out of a claim by the plaintiff for declaration of titleto a field called Polgahagoda. The plaintiff asserted that he was theviharadhipati of Mailapitiya Vihare and that the field belonged to thetemple. These the defendant denied : he further pleaded that he hadacquired a title by prescription to the field.
On the substantial question whether the land belongs to MailapitiyaVihare, the Judge has given very cogent reasons for holding in favour ofthe temple, and it would hardly have been possible to contest successfullyhis findings on the question of title and possession. Counsel for theappellant attacks, and counsel for the respondent defends, the right of theplaintiff to institute the action which was upheld by the trial Judge.
Saranakare Thero was the incumbent about forty years ago of MailapitiyaVihare, which belongs to Asgiriya College. On his death about 1903his pupil Chandrajoti became the incumbent and in 1933 he leased thefield, which forms part of the lands belonging tc the Temple, to thedefendant for a period of seven years. On the death of Chandrajoti in1935 Ratnajoti Thero is alleged to have become the incumbent andsomewhere in the year 1940 he brought the plaintiff to the temple andafter placing him in charge of the Vihare he disrobed himself. Plaintiffis a pupil of Sumangala Thero of Murutoluwa Vihare and belongs to theMalwatta fraternity.
This temple appears to have been exempted from the provisions ofsub-seection (1) of section 4 of Ch. 222 of the Legislative Enactments(Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance). The management of the propertybelonging to this temple is vested in the Viharadhipati of MailapitiyaVihare (sub-section (2)). The Viharadhipati is the principal bhikku of atemple, whether resident or not (section 3). The Ordinance is one toamend and consolidate the law. It is legitimate in the interpretation ofthe sections to refer to the previous state of the law for the purpose ofascertaining the intention of the Legislature. The presiding priest of avihare or incumbent has the control and administration of the vihareitself. Formerly (i.e., up to 15th November, 1889) the possession of theland and other property appertaining to the vihare was also in him ; afterthe enactment of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance (No. 3 of 1889)the property of the vihare was vested generally in the trustee elected in the!manner stated in the Ordinance. . A bhikku may be the presiding officerof a vihare, or a resident priest, or a non-resident priest (agantuge) ~
1 Be Budgett (1894) 2 Chancery 557.
CANEKERATNE J.—Punchirala v. Dharmananda Thera'.
13
the presiding priest is known as the Viharadhipati; sometimes he iscalled the incumbent (the incumbency is called the adhipati kama) ,in some cases the adhikari bhikshu ; (see 26 N. L. R. 257 and 20 N. L. R.385). The viharadhipati has charge of the vihare and premises and therights and ceremonies within it: a resident priest has no such charge rhe lives in the pansala in the vihare premises and assits in the services':he generally is subordinate to the Viharadhipati: the dgantuge generallyis not permanently resident in a particular vihare, he goes to some vihareand is there for some time ; sometimes he may assist in' the services
Succession to an incumbency is regulated by the terms of the originaldedication. If no provision was made at the time of the original dedicationfor regulating the mode of succession, succession must be presumed to bein accordance with the rule of sissiyanu sissiya paramparawa or pupillarysuccession, which is the general rule of succession. An incumbentcannot grant the right of succession to a stranger *.
The incumbency became vacant when Ratnajoti disrobed himself ; theright of succession would have passed to his pupil, if any, or to hisco-pupils, or to those who were in the line of pupillary descent from theoriginal grantee or incumbent. If the chain of pupillary succession isbroken the rights of representation to the incumbency vest in the chapterof the college to which the temple belongs
The dhayakayas of the vihare were not the persons who dedicated if.and could have had no right to-appoint the plaintiff as the successor to-the last incumbent *. The plaintiff would not have been entitled to claim,the incumbency of this temple before the enactment of the presentOrdinance. . Is he entitled to prefer a claim now ? The language of the.section (section 3) shows that residence is not the determining factor. Hemust however be the viharadhipati. A viharadhipati need not have hisresidence at the vihare itself. It sometimes happens that the viharadhipatiof a particular temple does not live there ; he lives at another temple andanother priest lives at the temple and looks affer its affairs, usually with:the consent of the incumbent or because he has some right to be there—examplesthe Viharadhipati of Dambulla Vihare" and the tutor of theplaintiff in the case of Dhammajoti vs. Sobita As a High Priest said inhis evidence in the last case—“ it is quite possible for a man to be pupil totwo priests' and succeed both ”.
A viharadhipati is one who can lawfully claim to be the head of the*vihare, one, generally, who can show that he is the pupil of the lastincumbent or that he is in the line of pupillary succession". Had theplaintiff put forward a claim to recognition as viharadhipati according"
1 CJ. the evidence at page 237, 22 ff. L. R. (Wickremesinghe et'al. v.Unanse et al.).
1 Dhammajoti v. Sobita {1913) 16 N. L. R. 408 :Indasotti v. Ratnasotti (1915!j
4 Bad. N. O. 39.
Dammaratna Unnanse v. Sumangala Vnnanee et at. {1910) 14 N. L. R. 400.
Dammaratna Vnnanae t>. Sumangala Unnanse et al. {1910) 20 Ar. L. R. 507.
Qunanda Unnanse o. Dewarakkita Unnanse {1924) 26 N. L. R. 262.
4 Dhamma Jnty v. Saranande {1881) 6 S. C. G. 8.
CJ. Rathunapala v. Kewitiagala (1879) 2 S. C. G. 26 (at p. 28).
4 Dhammadassi Thero v. Dhammasiddi Thero (1946) 47-17. L. R. 553.
Dhammajoti v. Sobita (1913) 16 N. L. R. 408.
7 “ Maywrapada parivenadhipati va. b. visin—by'the V. B. who was the head ’of the Mays ”—Dictionary oj Sinhalese Language 1940,-Vol. 1, Part 5, page 203.
14
NAG ALIN GAM AJ.—Maharoof v. Isadeen.
to the rules in force and had the trial Judge come to the conclusion thatthe claim had been established, it may have been difficult to disturb thatfinding. But no such contention was put forward by the plaintiff. It isclear that the plaintiff has no right to maintain this action and the appealmust consequently be allowed with costs of appeal. The costs of thehearing were increased by the defendant’s denial of the rights of the templeto this field and his assertion of a title by prescription : the defendantfailed to establish these to the satisfaction of the trial Judge ; he willnot be entitled to the costs of the trial in the lower Court.
Appeal allonaed.