1927 Present: Schneider J. and Dalton J.

SEYADU LEBBE v. LOKU BANDA.

240-D. C. Kandy, 33,727.

Buddhist Temporalities-Lease of temple land by incumbent-No appointment of trustees-Dismissal of trustee-Ordinance No. 8 cf 1905, ss. 27 and 34.

The proviso to section 27 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance under which temple lands may be demised by the incumbent with the sanction of the District Committee applies only to cases where no trustee has been appointed to the temple at any time under the Ordinance.

Per DALTON J.-The District Committee has no power to appoint a priest as a provisional trustee under section 34 of the Ordinance.

PLAINTIFF sought to recover from the defendant possession of a land which belonged to the Udamudune vihare. Plaintiff claimed upon a lease of the land given to him for a term of three years from September, 1925, by the Adikari Bhikshu of the vihare under the provisions of section 27 of the Buddhist temporalities. It was contended by the defendant that the lease was bad as there was a duly appointed trustee of the vihare, and that the Adikari Bhikshu had no right to grant a lease. The defendant claimed to be in possession by virtue of an informal lease entered into in 1912 between the then trustee and himself under which he had planted and improved the land.

The learned District Judge held that at the time the plaintiff obtained the lease there was a duly appointed trustee of the vihare and that the lease in his favour was bad. He dismissed the plaintiff's action.

N. E. Weerasooriya, for plaintiff, appellant.-The dismissal of the plaintiff's action is based on the finding that the District Committee's order of dismissal of the trustee was not properly made. The defendant has no right to raise an issue challenging the decision of the District Committee. For under section 16 of the Ordinance the only person entitled to question the propriety of his dismissal is the trustee himself; and a third party is clearly precluded from initiating an inquiry into the validity of a decision relating to the dismissal of a trustee-a decision which is deemed to be final and conclusive for all purposes. This

being the true legal position-the sole question for consideration is the validity of the lease granted by the incumbent to the plaintiff. With the sanction of the Committee an incumbent has power under section 27 to demise lands. Besides this, when a trustee is dismissed the Committee has power under section 34 to appoint any person to act provisionally as trustee. The incumbent having executed the lease in compliance with the directions of the Committee should be deemed to be a duly appointed provisional trustee. In these circumstances full legal effect should have been given to the plaintiff's formal lease.

Navaratnam, for defendant, respondent.-The procedure followed by the Committee in dismissing the trustee was in defiance of the letter and spirit of the Ordinance. The dismissal was effected without the formulation of a charge or notice to the trustee concerned. That, in such circumstances, the defendant is barred from questioning the propriety of the dismissal of the trustee is ft proposition which cannot be accepted without demur. The validity of the lease in favour of the plaintiff, however, can be considered apart from the question of the dismissal of the trustee. For it is clear law that once a temple is brought within the operation of the Ordinance an incumbent cannot have control over its temporalities even with the sanction of the District Committee. The true construction of section 27 of the Ordinance is to be found in the Gonameruwewa Case,1 [19 N. L. R. 36.] where, on the refusal of a trustee to act, the incumbent sought to maintain an action in respect of temple property, it was held that the incumbent had no status in the action; and that a duly appointed new trustee alone could maintain the action. It is th