1922 Present: Bertram C.J. and De Sampayo J.

SILVA v. VIPULASENASABHA et al.

343-D. C. Colombo, 37,571.

Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, No. 8 of 1905, s. 41-Must license be obtained from Governor before gift it made !-Interest transferred not in land, but in proceeds of sale-Is it repugnant to section ?

By a deed plaintiff made an offering of a property for the use of the great Sangha, and transferred the possession to the great Sangha of the Ramanna sect for the use of the great Sangha of the four quarters of the Ramanna sect, under the presidency of the first defendant, and appointed four trustees. If any difficulty arose in regard to the holding of the property, the trustees for the time being were authorized to sell it with the consent of the Chief Terunnanse, and with the proceeds to improve Sri Lankaramaya, where first defendant resided.

Held, that the deed was not obnoxious to the provisions of section 41 of Ordinance No. 8 of 1905.

Under section 41 a license may be taken out from the Governor in respect of a devise, grant, or conveyance already made.

" The object of the section it not to control gifts of money, but to control the permanent tying up of land. The interest conferred in this case is not in the land, bat in the proceeds of its sale."

The plaint was as follows:-

(4) The plaintiff was induced to execute the deed No. 940 by the false representation of the defendants that the same was a donation of the said land, subject to certain reservations to trustees to be held by them perpetually for the benefit of the entire priesthood of the Buddhist religion, whereas and in point of fact, the said deed purports to be a

transfer only of the possession to a certain sect of the Buddhist priests known as the Ramanna sect, and is not a transfer of the dominium in perpetuity to trustees for the benefit of the entire Buddhist priesthood.

The said Ramanna sect is a body of Buddhist priests who have no corporate existence in law.

(5) The. plaintiff pleads that the said deed No. 940 is liable to be set aside on the grounds and for the reasons following:-

(a) That the said deed is inconsistent with and repugnant to the said intention of the plaintiff.

(b) That the said deed is bad in law, inasmuch as it is vague, indefinite, and inconclusive as to the transfer of the dominium.

(c) That the said deed in effect creates a donation of the said land for the benefit of a Buddhist temple without the license of His Excellency the Governor, and is therefore void as repugnant to the provisions of section 41 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, 1905.

(6) The second, third, and fourth defendants have central into possession of the said land, and they and the first defendant refuse to give up possession of the said land and to cancel the said deed though there unto requested to the plaintiff's damage of Rs. 500.

The plaintiff prays-

(1) That the said deed No. 940 be declared null and void.

(2) That the plaintiff be declared to be the owner of the said land.

(2a) That the defendants be ejected from the said land, and the plaintiff be placed in possession thereof.

(3) That the defendants be condemned jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff the said sum of Rs. 500.

The case went to trial on the following issues: -

(1) Is the deed No. 940 of October 25, 1913, bad in law because it purports to be a transfer for the benefit of the Buddhist temple known as Sri Lankaramaya, and the license of the Governor for such transfer has not been obtained in terms of section 41 of the Ordinance No. 8 of 1905 ?

(2) Is the said deed null and void on the ground that it purports to- be a transfer to the Sangha of the Ramanna sect who are a body of priests having no corporate existence in law ?

(3) Is the deed in favour of any Buddhist temple ?

(4) If Sri Lankaramaya was not a temple, or not held in Sanghika, is the deed void as a gift for the benefit of an instituti