LANKANANDA THERO

Vs.

PIYANANDA THERO

COURT OF APPEAL
LAFFAR, J.
KARALLIYADDE, J.
CA/DCF/407/1996
DC MT LAVINIA 205/ZL
AUGUST 2, 2021

Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, No. 19 of 1931, sections 3, 4(2), 23-Sanghika property-Private property-Method of succession of viharadhipathiship-Pupillary succession (shishshanu shishaya parampanawa)-Evidence Ordinance, section 58-Admissions

The plaintiff instituted action in the District Court seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the viharadhipathi of the temple in suit and eviction of the 1st and 200 defendants. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the provisions of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, No. 19 of 1931, applied to the temple and that it is a sanghika property and the method of succession of viharadhipathiship of the temple is line of pupillary (shishshanu shishaya parampanawa) and according to pupillary succession the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the viharadhipathi of the temple. The defendant took up the position that the temple is a private

(pudgalika) property of Rev. Madawala Sunanda Thero who was the first viharadhipathi of the temple and since it is a private property of that Thero, the provisions of the Ordinance do not apply to the temple and by way of agreement among the pupils the viharadhipathiship is held in rotation and the 1st defendant became the viharadhipathi of the temple at the last. After trial, the District Court held with the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held:

1. An admission has been recorded that the provisions of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance apply to the temple in dispute and the first viharadhipathi of the temple was Rev. Madawala Sunanda Thero. In terms of section 3 of the Ordinance, the provisions of the Ordinance apply to every temple in Sri Lanka. The defendants cannot deviate from that admission on appeal.

2. Viharadhipathi means the principal bikkhu of the temple. In terms of section 4(2) of the Ordinance, when the management of the property belonging to a temple is exempted from the operation of sub-section 1 of that section but not exempted from the operation of the entire Ordinance, such property should vest in the viharadhipathi of such temple who is referred to as the "controlling viharadhipathi."

3. The general rule of succession of management and the title to a property of a temple is line of pupillary (shishshanu shishaya parampanawa) from the first incumbent of that temple. Accordingly, if the incumbency of a temple is in dispute, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the incumbency should be subject to the shishshanu shishayaparampanawa rule of succession.

4. There is no evidence in the case at hand that Rev. Madawala Sunanada Thero who was admittedly the first viharadhipathi of this temple had appointed any particular pupil out of the line of pupillary as his successor for the management of and title to the temple. The succession of the viharadhipathiship of the temple in dispute should be according to the line of pupillary succession. The plaintiff as the senior pupil of the last viharadhipathyis entitled to succeed.

Cases referred to:

1. Mariammai v. Pethrupillai 21 NLR 200
2. Uvais v. Punyawathi [1993] 2 Sri LR 46
3. Pemananda Thero v. Thomas Perera 56 NLR 413
4. Unnanse v. Unnanse (1921) 22 NLR 323
5. Dhammajothi v. Sobitha (1913) 16 NLR 408
6. Gunaratne Unnanse v. Dhammananda (1921) 22 NLR 276
7. Therunnanse v. Therunnanse (1905) Matara Cases 236

APPEAL from the Judgment of the District Court of Mount Lavinia.

Manohara De Silva, P.C., with Hirosha Munasinghe and H. Kumarage for the 1st (A) Defendant-Appellant.

Dr. Jayatissa Costa, P.C, with Wijeratne Hewage for the Plaintiff-Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

October 28, 2021

KARALLIYADDE, J.

This Appeal emanates from a judgement of the learned District Judge of Mt. Lavinia