SANGHARATANA UNNANSE v. WEERASEKERA.

SANGHARATANA UNNANSE v. WEERASEKERA.

D. C., Galle, 5,599.

Buddhist vihare-Incumbency-Rule of succession-Temple property in Kandyan Province and Southern Province-Evidence.

The terms of the original dedication of a Buddhist vihare must govern the method of succession as to its incumbency.

In the absence of definite terms attached to the dedication, sisya-paramparawa must be presumed to be the rule of succession, in not only the Kandyan Provinces, but also the Maritime Provinces.

Proof of any exception to this rule lies on the party who alleges it.

IT appeared in this case that one Dharmarama Terunnanse, the incumbent of the Ahangama Vihare, was succeeded by his eldest pupil Wimalasara Terunnanse, who died in 1896. Wimalasara's only pupil was the plaintiff, who, at the time of his teacher's death, was a minor. Being now of full age, he came into Court complaining of possession being withheld from him by the defendants, and prayed that he be declared entitled to the vihare and its adjuncts.

The defendants, admitting that Dharmarama Terunnanse was the incumbent of the vihare, pleaded that he was succeeded by Wimalasara Terunnanse, and the third defendant (Ratnapala Terunnanse) by election at a duly convened assembly of the priests belonging to the Amarapura Dharmayuktika Nikaya, and that the rule of pupilary succession was never recognized by the priests of that Nikaya, to which Dharmarama Terunnanse belonged.

The District Judge (Mr. F. J. de Livera), after hearing evidence, found as follows: -

" I consider it proved that this vihare was held by pupilary succession, and that on the death of Dharmaratna, Wimalasara, as senior pupil, succeeded to the incumbency, and that plaintiff was the only pupil of Wimalasara.

" ' If a Buddhist priest be the incumbent of a vihare held by the pupilary succession, the incumbency on his death passes by law to the priest or priests who are next in the line of succession.' So observed Lawrie, A.C.J., in D. C, Kalutara, 205, reported in 3 N. L. R. 383. I therefore hold plaintiff is now the lawful incumbent of the vihare.

My verdict on the issues is: -

" (1) Wimalasara succeeded Dharmarama. Wimalasara and third defendant were not appointed joint incumbents on the death of Dharmarama. There is nothing in writing to show who succeeded Dharmarama upon the oral evidence adduced. I hold that Wimalasara alone succeeded Dharmarama.

" (2) Plaintiff was the only pupil of Wimalasara.

" (3) Sumangala was in charge of the incumbency for plaintiff since the date of Wimalasara's death.

" (4) First defendant is a legally constituted trustee of this vihare under Ordinance No. 3 of 1889. His appointment has been produced (dated 4th September, 1897).

" (5) Defendants kept plaintiff out of possession.

" (6) Second defendant was appointed joint incumbent with third defendant of this vihare at an assembly of priests convened at Dodanduwa some time after Wimalasara's death, but that appointment is of no force in law.

"It would seem shortly before Wimalasara's death there was a split resulting in the formation of two parties, one party supporting Sumangala, who was also a pupil of Dharmarama, and the other party supporting third defendant. When Wimalasara died an attempt was made to elect a successor to Wimalasara at Ahangama, and this was frustrated by Sumangala. An assembly was then convened by the party opposed to Sumangala at Dodanduwa, and second defendant was appointed joint incumbent with third defendant in place of Wimalasara.

'' (7) The Provincial Committee did not dismiss the second and third defendants, and uphold the plaintiff's right to the incumbency. (See document W for the judgment of the Provincial Committee.) The Committee held the chief power was in Sumangala, and ordered second defendant to quit, and third defendant to remain, but be obedient to Sumangala.

" Document Z is a translation of the roles that were in operation whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document