Gooneratne Nayake Thero V. Punchi Banda Korala .

1926 Present: Lyall Grant J. and Maartensz. A .J.

GOONERATNE NAYAKE THERO v. PUNCHI

BANDA KORALA.

359-D.C. Kandy, .32,5577.

Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance-Jurisdiction-The extent of the powers of a trustee-The chief priest's control of buildings necessary for the performance of religious services-The appointment and dismissal of ministerial officers-Ordinance No. 8 of 1905, s. 20.

An action by the chief priest of a vihare for a declaration of his right to the custody and possession of the gabadage and the multenge may be maintained in a Civil Court.

While the trustee is vested with legal title to the gabadage and multenge, the high priest is entitled to the unhampered use of the same for the purpose of maintaining the religious rites and ceremonies of the vihare.

 A trustee is not entitled to appoint or dismiss the ministerial officers attached to the temple.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy.

Hayley, for defendant, appellant.

H. V. Perera (with Canakeratne), for plaintiff, respondent.

July 30, 1926. LYALL GRANT J.-

The plaintiff-respondent in this case is the " Nayake Unnanse " or chief priest of the Dambulla vihare, and the defendant appellant is the trustee thereof appointed under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance of 1905.

As chief priest of the said vihare the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the custody and possession of the " gabadage " or store-room where the rice and other articles required for the daily offerings are kept, and the " multenge " or kitchen where the food offerings are cooked.

He complained that on December 5, 1924, the defendant took possession of the utensils of the multenge, and thereafter on January 8, 1925. entire and complete possession of the gabadage and multenge.

He further complained that the defendant refused and failed to supply rice and other requirements for the daily offerings, and that he had by his wrongful acts made it impracticable for the plaintiff to perform his duties at the vihare.

The plaintiff asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing in wrongful possession of the gabadage and multenge and the articles and utensils therein and to grant him the daily offerings.

The defendant took a preliminary objection that the dispute referred purely to religious ceremonial and therefore could not be the subject of litigation. That objection was dealt with by the District Judge on April 6, 1925.

The learned District Judge decided that the case did not refer purely to matters of religious rites and ceremonials.

In appeal it was argued that the Court had no jurisdiction sis the matter was of a purely religious nature, and various cases were cited in support of and against this contention.

In the case of Kurukel v. Kurukel 1 there was a dispute between two Hindu priests as to which of them was entitled to the incumbency of a certain temple. The Court there held that it had no power to interfere as it was a purely religious matter.

In Pitche Tamby v. Cassim Marikar 2 there was a dispute between Muhammadans and Hindus with regard to pagoda processions within the precincts of a mosque. Wood Kenton C .J. laid down the principle in that case, that while no secular tribunal will take cognizance of or adjudicate on controversies between rival religious sects as to doctrine or ceremonial where nothing else is in issue, no such tribunal will refuse to take cognizance of or to adjudicate on such controversies where civil rights are at stake, even, though such decision involves pronouncing an opinion upon what would otherwise be purely an ecclesiastical question.

The Indian cases cited appear to be to the same effect. In Va'sudev v. Va'Mna'Ji 3 and in Subbaraya Mudaliar v. Vedantachariar 4 the disputes were of a purely religious nature.

In Fazl Karim v. Maula Baksh 5 the dispute related to the interpretation of Muhammadan law, and the que

Click Here to Read the rest of this document