1927 Present: Schneider J. and Maartensz A.J,

GUNARATNE v. PUNCHIBANDA.

67-D. C. Kandy, 33,617.

Buddhist Temporalities-Claim for Maintenance by incumbent-Ben judicata-Past maintenance-Claim to right-Civil Procedure Code, s, 207-Ordinanee No. 8 of 1905, s. 30.

The decree in an action for maintenance brought by the incumbent of a Buddhist temple against the trustee is not res adjudicata in a subsequent action for a similar claim by the successor in office of the incumbent.

A decision as to what is a reasonable sum for maintenance does not involve an adjudication on a right within the meaning of section 207 of the Civil Procedure Code.

An incumbent is not entitled to claim past maintenance except in the form of reimbursement of expenses incurred in maintaining himself or the priesthood.

Where the trustee of a Buddhist temple has acted under the instructions of the District Committee in defending an action he is not personally liable in costs.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy. The plaintiff, claiming to be the High Priest of the Dam bulla Vihare, instituted this action to recover a sum of Rs. 965 for past maintenance from the defendant, who is the trustee of the vihare. He also claimed an order for future maintenance. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff, not being resident in the vihare was not entitled to maintenance and that the claim for past maintenance Was not sustainable. At the trial the plaintiff contended that action No. 20,156 of the same Court stopped the defendant from opposing the plaintiff's claim. The learned District Judge held that the decision in the previous action was Ten judicata not only on the question of plaintiff's right to maintenance but also up oil the plaint as to what is a reasonable sum for maintenance.

H. V. Perm, for defendant, appellant.

Keuneman, for plaintiff, respondent.

October 27, 1927. SCHNEIDER J.-

The plaintiff, stating that he had been appointed the high priest of the Dam bulla vihare in June, 1924, instituted this action in January, 1926, claiming a balance sum of Rs. 965 as due to him

at the rate of Rs. 60 per mensem for past maintenance up to the date of action from the defendant who is the trustee of that vihare. He also claimed an order that future maintenance be paid at the same rate. The defendant pleaded three defenses. First, that the plaintiff not being resident in the vihare was not entitled to maintenance. Nest, that Rs. 15 a month was a reasonable allowance for maintenance; and lastly, that the claim being for past maintenance was not sustainable. He also pleaded that a larger sum than that, admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint, had been paid to him by the defendant. At the trial the plaintiff pleaded that action No. 20,156 of the same Court decided in 1912, stopped the defendant from opposing the plaintiff's claim by the defence raised.

At the trial nine issues were framed and the District Judge decided that he would try the issues numbered 8 and 9 as he thought that they would probably dispose of the whole case. He heard argument upon those two issues which raised the question whether the decree in the action mentioned was res judicata in regard to the plaintiff's claim of a right to receive maintenance (issue 9) and the question whether it was competent to the Court to entertain the action as it involved an ecclesiastical matter (issue 8.) He delivered his judgment in September, 1926, holding on issue 8 that the Court had jurisdiction respecting the subject-matter of the action upon considerations other than the decision in action No. 20,156, and that the decision in the action mentioned was res judicata not only on the question of the plaintiff's right to claim maintenance as the issue he tried set out but " also on issues 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8." I agree with the District Judge that his decision of issue 9 involved the decision of issues 1 and 5 which mer