048-NLR-NLR-V-53-ROMANIS-FERNANDO-Appellant-and-WIMALASIRI-THERO-Respondent.pdf
Romanis Fernando ». Wimalasiri Thero
245
1951Present : Basnayake J. and Gunasekara J.ROMANIS FERNANDO, Appellant, and WIMADASIRI THERO,
Respondent
S.. C. 91—D. C. Colombo, IS,161
Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance—Sections 4 (2) and 20—Meaning of expressions“ temple ” and “ controlling viharadhipati ”.
Plaintiff was a bhikku of several years’ standing. He went from Colombo toKelaniya, and some of his lay followers secured a place of residence for himthere. A block of land was purchased and living quarters were erected forhim. by the dayakas. The land was formally donated to the Sangha in thecustomary manner on the date of the occupation of the new avasa. There-after the dayakas held pinkamas for the purpose of inviting the lay Buddhists tosubscribe towards the erection of a preaching hall and an image room or vihare.The subscriptions so collected from time to time were handed to the defendant,who was the Treasurer of the Society formed with the object of putting up otherbuildings associated with a place of Buddhist religious worship.
In an action,brought by the plaintiff to recover the subscriptions which thedefendant was unlawfully withholding—
Held, that the plaintiff was the “ controlling yiharadipati ” of a “ temple ”within the contemplation of those expressions in section 20 of the BuddhistTemporalities Ordinance. No particular type of building or buildings arenecessary to constitute a temple. The definition of “ temple ” is very wide.
24C
BASNAYAKE J.—Romanis Fernando r. Wimalasiri Then
A P PTC AT. from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
H. V. Perera, K.G., with Kingsley Herat, for the defendant appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria, K.C., with S. P. Wijewickrema and T. B.Dissanayake, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cut. adv. vult.
June 13, 1951. Basnayakb J.—
On the facts this appeal has no merit whatsoever. The only questionthat need be considered is whether the plaintiff is the “ controllingviharadhipati ” of a “ temple ” within the contemplation of those ex-pressions in section 20 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance. It iscontended for the appellant that the place in respect of which theplaintiff brings this action is not a temple.
I shall state the facts only so iar as they are relevant to the considerationof the above question. The plaintiff is a bhikkhu of several years’standing. – Till 1942 he was living in Colombo. Shortly after the Japaneseair raid on Ceylon in that year, the plaintiff took up residence in a placecalled Polpitimukalana near Kelaniya. At first he found temporaryaccommodation in a small avasa. This he had to vacate before long.One E. D. R. Fernando, who had- known the plaintiff for a long time,helped Him with the aid of other lay followers to secure a place of residence.A quarter acre block of land was purchased for Rs. 500 with moneyprovided by Fernando. At first a small hut was erected thereon withthe assistance both in cash and in services provided by the dayakas.Thereafter permanent living quarters of eabook and brick were constructed.These too were erected by the dayakas. The land was formally donatedby Fernando to the Sangha in the customary manner on the date of theoccupation of the new avasa. Thereafter the dayakas held pinkamasfor the purpose of inviting the lay Buddhists to subscribe towards theerection of a preaching hall and an .image room or vihare. The sub-scriptions so collected from time to time amounted to Rs. 2,879. Theywere handed to the defendant, who was the Treasurer of the Societyformed with the object of putting up other buildings associated witha place of Buddhist religious worship. This action is to recover thatsum of money which the defendant is unlawfully withholding.
The expression “ temple ” is thus defined in the Buddhist Tempora-lities Ordinance:
“ * temple means vihare, dagoba, dewale, kovila, avasa, or anyplace of Buddhist worship, and includes the Dalada Maligawa,
the Sripadasthana, and the Atamasthana of Anuradhapura.”
•»
No particular type of building or buildings are necessary to constitutea temple. The definition is very wide. The plaintiff’s avasa is a temple.There is overwhelming evidence that the money claimed from thedefendant were offerings made for the use of the temple by devout lay
PE SXLiVA J.—Velupillai o. Manomany
247
supporters. By virtue of section .20 of the Buddhist TemporalitiesOrdinance they vest in the trustee or the controlling viharadhipatiof the temple. The place in question has no trustee. The plaintiffwho is undoubtedly the principal bhikkhu of the temple and thereforeits viharadhipati within the meaning of that expression as used in theOrdinance is by virtue of section 4 (2) its controlling viharadhipati. Heis therefore entitled to recover the money from the defendant.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Gunasekara J.—-I agree.
Appeal dismissed.