Unnanse Et Al. V. Unnanse.

Present : Ennis A.C.J. and De Sampayo J.    1921

UNNANSE et al. v. UNNANSE.

202-D.C. kandy, 2,678.

Buddhist ecclesiastical law-Rules of succession-Claim that certain families had the right to appoint the incumbents.

"There ore only two rules of succession known to the Buddhist law, namely, sisyanusisya paramparawa or pupillary succession and siwuru paramparawa,, which is also a form of pupillary succession, but with the special characteristic that the pupil is a blood relation of the original priestly incumbent. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the incumbency is subject to the sisyanusisya paramparawa rule of succession."

The right of certain families to appoint an incumbent when a vacancy occurs considered.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

H. J. C. Pereira, K.C. (with him J. S. Jayawardene and Cooray), for appellant.

E. W. Jayawarden, for respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 22, 1921. ENNIS A.C.J.-

This was an action for a declaration of title to the incumbency of the Dantura Vihare. The incumbency was held by one Indajoti Unnanse, and on his death about nine years ago his pupil Piyaratane succeeded to the incumbency. Piyaratane subsequently disrobed himself, and died about four years ago.

The plaintiffs claim the incumbency as pupils of Indajoti. The defendant sets up a title to it by virtue of an appointment by members of the Dehigama and Giragama families, by whom he asserted the patronage of the vihare was held.

The learned District Judge held that succession to the incumbency was governed by the sisyanusisya, and he gave judgment for the plaintiffs.

On appeal I see no reason to interfere with the learned Judge's finding of fact that the plaintiffs were the pupils of Indajoti, as proved by the production of the lekam mitiya and the evidence of Sri Deerananda Unnanse.

The main question in the case and on appeal was whether the succession to the incumbency in the case of the Dantura Vihare was governed by the sisyanusisya.

In the case of Ratnapala Unnanse v. Kewitigala Unnanse,1[(1879) 2 S.C.C. 26.] the rule was enunciated that with all vihares there is a presumption

that sisyanusisya paramparawa applies. In Sangaharatne Unnanse v. Weeresekera1[(1903) 6 N. L. R. 313.] it was held that the terms of the original dedication governed the method of succession as to its incumbency. It was urged on appeal that the learned Judge had not dealt with the evidence adduced by the defendant (appellant). The principal piece of evidence adduced by the defendant was the document D 4, which is a copy of the proceedings in a case before the Judicial Commissioner at Kandy in 1823 sitting with two assessors. In that case a member of the Dehigama family successfully claimed the incumbency of the Dantura Vihare. The assessors stated that there were certain temple estates in the country possessed by hereditary right, and that the proprietors of such estates were bound to keep the temple in repair and " to have the sacred duties duly o performed." They went on to say: " . . . . Generally a member of the proprietary family is ordained priest with the view of officiating, but if there be no members eligible to the priesthood, some other priest is selected to officiate. However, if the viharagama is divided amongst several branches of a family, and they will not concur in the appointment of an incumbent, the sacred duty devolved upon, and is performed by, the several partners in the estate according to their respective interests therein. This practice, however, was disapproved of by the deposed king, who authorized certain superior priests to take cognizance of the affairs of such vihares, and when the proprietary families neglected to have priests to officiate and laymen assumed the sacred function to appoint priests to do the duties, the ' paraweni' proprietors of the viharagam being subject to furnish everything requisite

Click Here to Read the rest of this document