Saranankara Unnanse Et Al. V. Indajoti Unnanse Et Al.,

1918 Present: Bertram C.J. and De Sampayo J.

SARANANKARA UNNANSE et al. v. INDAJOTI
UNNANSE et al.

187-D. C. Kandy, 34,967.

Buddhist ecclesiastical law-What is necessary to constitute pupillage ?- Different kinds of pupils-Presentation for ordination-Robing- Instruction-Disrobement of tutor does not affect pupil-Claim to a share of an incumbency.

According to the ecclesiastical law observed among the Buddhists of Ceylon, presentation for ordination, apart from robing, is in itself sufficient to constitute pupillage. These functions may validly be performed by delegation

Semite, a priest presented for ordination by a priest other than the robing priest in his own name will be the pupil of both.

It is not essential that the pupil should have received instruction from the tutor whom he claims to succeed.

The disrobement of the tutor does not affect the status and rights of the pupil.

Per BERTRAM C .J.-According to the original theory of its institution, a vihare is dedicated to the whole Sangha. This has been modified by the religious custom known as '' pupillary succession," under which a vihare is specially dedicated to a particular priest and his pupils. By virtue of this dedication the priest and his pupils have a preferential right of residence and maintenance at the vihare-but this appears to be subject to the general dedication to the Sangha as a whole, inasmuch as on the failure of the succession the vihare reverts to the Sangha. In Ceylon every vihare is presumed to be dedicated in pupillary succession, unless the contrary is proved.

A vihare cannot be portioned out in shares, whether divided or undivided.

The office of " incumbent " is a single office, and cannot be held jointly, and consequently a claim to a " share " of an incumbency cannot be sustained.

I and R were fellow-pupils of P. I was the senior pupil and became " incumbent " of the vihare in question. R purported to convey his half share of the incumbency to his pupil, S, and thereafter disrobed himself. The plaintiffs, as pupils of S, claimed " a share on the incumbency " and a declaration that they were entitled to the incumbency jointly with I.

Held, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to such a declaration.

Per BERTRAM C.J.-The first defendant, I, was the incumbent, and B had nothing but a right of residence and maintenance. The deed cannot be treated as conveying this interest to S, as the interest is not a transmissible interest. Moreover, S was entitled

to it without any transfer. Similarly, the plaintiff, the pupils of S, were entitled, like, S, to a right of residence and maintenance at the vihare, and this is all they can at present be entitled to. As pupils of the pupils of S, they may in due course eventually be entitled to succeed to the incumbency. Whether either of them ever will, in fact," becomes so entitled must depend upon the development of events.

The various forms of pupillage under Buddhist ecclesiastical law discussed and explained.

Observations by De Sampayo J. on the importance in matters of ecclesiastical administration of ascertaining by evidence the customs actually in force among the Buddhist priesthood in Ceylon as distinguished from the ancient canons enunciated in the Buddhist scriptures. " Doctrine and belief are, of course, immutable, but discipline and administration are naturally subject to modifications."

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Bartholomeusz, for appellant.

G. Koch, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 13, 1918. BERTRAM C.J.-

This is a case in which the third plaintiff, a Buddhist priest, and the fourth plaintiff, another Buddhist priest, as his pupil, claimed to be entitled, jointly with the defendants, to the incumbency of a vihare, to the right of residence in the vihare, and to the right of maintenance out of the revenues of the vihare derived from the endowments attached th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document