( 36 )
UPANANDA TERUNNANSE v. DEVAMITTA UNNANSEand TWO OTHERS.
D. C., Chilaw, IS O.
Applicationfor guardianship and curatorship—Buddhist priest and pupil in robes.
Where a Buddhist priest applied to be appointed guardian of hispupil in robes and curator of his property—
Held, that he could not be appointed as such, as he was not hisfather, or other proper person to be appointed, and as it did not appearthat the minor was in possession of any property which required to betaken care of.
f I ^HIS was an application by the petitioner, the incumbent ofPonnankania Vihare, for an order directing the grant to himof a certificate of curatorship in respect of the property of the firstrespondent, a minor. The petitioner also prayed to be appointedas the guardian of the minor, who was said to be the lawful pupilof the petitioner, according to Sisyanu Sisya Paramparawa, and whoas such was being maintained and educated by the petitioner. Aschedule of property was filed, and the Court made the followingorder:—
“ Most of the property included in the schedule submitted“ appears to belong to the Pikkalana temple, and is vested in thetrustees thereof. I am not aware that the Pikkalana temple has
( 37 )
“ been exempted from the operation of the Buddhist Temporalities“ Ordinance. The incumbent priest of the temple and the trustee“ thereof should be made parties respondent to this application.’’They were so added, whereupon the petitioner moved for anorder mat under section 384 of the Civil Procedure Code. TheDistrict Judge refused an order nisi, holding, “the Buddhist“Temporalities Ordinance, No. 3 of 1889, is in force and cannot be“ ignored. Personal claims by Buddhist priests, monks, or pupils to“ temple property (in this case the Pikkalana Pansalawatta), which“is by law now vested in the trustee thereof, cannot be entertained.”The petitioner appealed.
Bawa, for appellant.
Cur. adv. vult.
2nd April, 1895. Lawrib, A.C.J.—
I am of opinion that the petitioner has not shown good reasonwhy a curator of the property and guardian of the person of theminor should be appointed, and certainly he has not shown goodreason why he (the applicant) should be selected.
As the minor is in robes as a pupil-priest, he must be ofsufficient age to be able to take some interest in this application,but so far as appears he did not go to Court to assure the Judgeof his willingness to have a curator appointed.
It is I think obvious that the object in view is to bring actions.If the minor needs to vindicate his property and his rights inCourt, it will be better that he should apply to the District Judgefor the appointment of a next friend, and the Judge will thenhave the opportunity of satisfying himself whether there be aprima facie prospect of success before he allows litigation in thename of the minor.
In affirming the order I must add that I am at a loss to under-stand why the trustee of the vihare was made a respondent, orwhat he or the provisions of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinancehave to do with this application.
The application is refused, (1) because the applicant is not thefather of the minor, and he has not shown that he is the properperson to be appointed ; (2) there is no property of which theminor is in possession of which it is necessary that the curatorshould take care. If litigation be contemplated, the interests ofthe minor can be looked after by a next fnend.
UPANANDA TERUNNANSE v. DEVAMITTA UNNANSE AND TWO OTHERS