Somaloka Terunnanse V. Somalankara Terunnanse Et Al,.

In the Matter of the Estate of the late Potuwila Indajoti Terunnanse, of Paiyagala, Deceased.

Somaloka Terunnanse, Petitioner, vs. Somalankara

Terunxanse et al. Respondent.

D. C., Kalutara, 205

 

Administration-Estate of Buddhist priest-Pupil of Buddhist priest- Private property of deceased priest-Right of next of kin to administer such property- Pupillary succession to incumbency-Civil Procedure Code. ch. 38-Ordiance No.15 of 1876, s. 15

Per Lawrie. J.- The pupil of a Buddhist priest is not his heir ande has no right of succession ah intestato to the private property of the deceased over which he had disposing power at the date of his death.

If a Buddhist priest be the incumbent of a vihara held by pupillary succession, the incumbency passes on his death to the priest or priests who are next in the line or succession.

Prior to the passing of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, the endowments of a vihara passed to the pupil who succeeded to the incumbency; now these are vested in a trustee, and the endowments do not fall under the grant of administration ab intestato.

The pupils of a Buddhist priest never appear to have been recognized as his heirs, to the exclusion of or rank with, his next of kin. If there was any disposition to treat pupils as heirs, it was corrected by the Ordinance No. 15 of 1876, which limits the succession of unmarried persons to their kinsmen.

THE petitioner, calling himself " Dediawala Somaloka Terunnanse," applied for letters of administration to the estate of the late Potuwila Indajoti Terunnanse, averring in his affidavit

that Potuwila died intestate, and that the petitioner and the two respondents named in the petition were the pupils of the deceased, and as such entitled to one-third each of his estate and effects.

Upon this application the District Judge allowed an order nisi to be entered, declaring that the petitioner was entitled to have letters of administration issued to him, unless the respondents showed sufficient cause to the contrary. On the service of the order nisi on the respondents, they appeared and showed cause as follows:-

(1)   No administration can be taken out in regard to the property of a deceased Buddhist priest, because he leaves nothing behind him.

(2)   Chapter 38 of the Civil Procedure Code refers only to the estate of persons leaving a will, or of intestates mentioned in Ordinance No. 11 of 1876.

(3)   Property held by a Buddhist priest is in the nature of a fidei commissum, and letters of administration are not necessary.

(4)   The petitioner virtually admits the effect of the petitioner's petition to be that the property sought to be administered is all sangika.

The District Judge, after hearing the respondents, made the order nisi absolute by the following judgment:-

" The main objection seems to be that there is no necessity for administration, as a Buddhist priest leaves naught behind him to be administered. This would be a sound doctrine if the followers of Sakyamuni strictly adhered to the principles laid down by him, and faithfully kept the vows of poverty which they take at the time of their entrance into the priesthood, but unfortunately they do not keep to their vows in this Island, and Buddhist priests frequently acquire large extent of lands and amass large sums of money which they lend out at interest in exactly the same way as a Sinhalese layman.

" Now, with regard to the deceased priest Potuwila Unnanse, it will be seen from the inventory filed that he left behind him in this mortal world not only landed property, but such articles as arrack, precious stones, medicinal oil, surgical instruments, books on medicine, astrology, &c. Very few priests leave such things as these, but it is well known in this district that the deceased was more a healer of bodily diseases than a curer of lost souls, hence his possessing surgical instruments, med

Click Here to Read the rest of this document