091-NLR-NLR-V-57-JINARATANA-THERO-Appellant-and-DHARMARATANA-THERO-Respondent.pdf
1955Present; Basnayake, A.C.J., and Pulle, J.
JINARATANA THERO, Appellant-, and DHAMMARATANATHERO, Respondent
S. C. 350—D. C. Kegalle, 7,loS
.Buddhist Ecclesiastical Law—Yiharadhipati—Renunciation oj status—Proof.
'‘ An intention of a bhikkhu to renounce his status ns Viharadhipati of a Viharo
-will not bo inferred unless that intention is clearly expressed by facts and-circumstances. A Viharadhipati docs not forfeit his right to tho office when holeaves tho templo of which he is Viharadhipati and takes up residence in another–of which he is also Viharadhipati.-'..-
(1954) 2 A. E. R. 51
* (1S92) C7 L.T. 251.
-‘ Tho residence of a pupil in his tutor’s Sanghika Viharo for whatever length "- of time cannot confer oh -him the right to bo iharadhipati of that vihare asagainst the,senior pupil.
,/_PPEA2j from a judgment of the District Court, Ivegalle.
C. V. Ranaiealce, with U. B. Weerasekera, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
II. F. Perera, Q.C., with H. IFr. Jayeicardene, Q.C., and D. R. P.
•Goonelilleke, for Defendant-Respondent..
– -.Cur. ado. vult.
.September 9, 1955. • Basxayake, A.C.J.—
This is an action between two bhikkhus in respect of their right to beViharadhipati of Hungampola Vihare (hereinafter referred to asHungampola). Degalathiriya Jinaratana, the plaintiff-appellant (herein-after referred to as the appellant), and Kehelwatte Dhammaratana,the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the icspondent),are the rival claimants.'
The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whetherthe respondent’s tutor forfeited his ■ right to be Viharadhipati ofHungampola..
It nould appear that Hettimulle Sumnna was the incumbent of the ’Hungampola. He died in Julj-, 1S55, leaving two pupils, HapuwitaRatanapala (hereinafter referred to as Ratanapala) and Ambamalle Guna-ratana (hereinafter referred to as Gunaratana), of whom Ratanapalawas the senior. Shortly after the death of his tutor, Ratanapala wasinvited to reside in a vihare in his own milage of Hatgampola and having-accepted that invitation he continued to reside there visiting Hungampola,-only on formal occasions. Gunaratana remained at Hungampola and-conducted a pirivena and a school there. He acquired a reputation-for Pali scholarship and attracted a large number of pupils, includingthe respondent, to his pirivena. Gunaratana himself had other temples ;but he resided at Hungampola on account of his| educational work.Since 1916, the date of his higher ordination, the appellant resided inone of them known as Gurullawala Salawewatte. Ratanapala died inOctober, 1924, at Hatgampola, leaving as his pupil the respondent.Gunaratana died in August, 1942, at Hungampola. He had several•pupils of whom the appellant was the most senior and Somaiatana wasthe most junior. Prior to his death Gunaratana executed a deed of giftIn favour of Somaratana. This led to litigation between Somaratana-and the other pupils, including the appellant, after Gunaratana’s death.
In December, 194S, Somaratana executed a deed assigning to therespondent all movable and immovable property belonging toHungampola and the office of Viharadhipati of that Vihare. In 1950, 'Somaratana left the order. This event led to the present action. The •-appellant claims the vihare as the senior pupil of Gunaratana while therespondent claims it as the senior pupil of Ratanapala and also on thedeed executed by Somaratana. It is clear.-that Somaratana had noright to d’spose of the vihare and its adhipatiship jn the way he did.
His deed is of no effect or avail in law. If the respondent’s claim hadrested on that deed alone he Mould not be entitled to succeed. .
His claim based on his succession to Ratanajpala is one that theappellant- lias to meet. That the respondent is Ratanapala’s successor
is not denied ; but the appellant maintains that Ratanapala abandonedliis rights to Hungampola when he took up permanent residence atHatgampola and that upon such abandonment Gunaratana becameViharadhipati of Hungampola.
It has been held by this Court that a bhikkhu can renounce his rightto be Viharadhipati of a Vihare and that the renunciation of the rightneed not be expressly made ; but may be inferred from facts and circums-tances *. But an intention to renounce will not be inferred unless thatintention clearly appears therefrom upon a strict interpretation of thefacts and circumstances of the case. If the facts and circumstancesleave the matter in doubt then the inference to be drawn is that thereis no renunciation 2.
There being no presumption in favour of the renunciation of a right, theonus is on the appellant to prove facts and circumstances from whichit can be clearly inferred that Ratanapala renounced his right to the officeof Viharadhipati of Hungampola.
Beamed Counsel for the appellant has not cited any authority insupport of his contention that a Viharadhipati forfeits his right to theoffice when he leaves the temple of which he is Viharadhipati and takesup residence in another of which he is also Viharadhipati. The officeof Viharadhipati is not one that can be abandoned by mere residence inanother place. There is nothing in the Vina3-a or the decisions of thisCourt which requires a Viharadhipati to reside in the temple of whichhe is Viharadhipati. A bhikkhu who is Viharadhipati of more thanone temple must of necessity reside in one place at a time and the merefact that he makes one of the temples his permanent residence docsnot operate as a renunciation of his right to the others.
The appellant has not gone beyond proving that Ratanapala took uppermanent residence at Hatgampola and that Gunaratana remained atHungampola and conducted a pirivena and a school and generally actedas if he were in charge of the -ihare to the extent of even nominatinghis successor to it; But that is not sufficient. It is not denied thatHungampola is a vihare granted to the Sangha and that Gunaratanawas entitled to reside there and carry on his educational work. Theresidence of a pupil in his tutor’s Sanghika Vihare for whatever lengthof time can confer no right on him to he Viharadhipati of that vihareas against the senior 2mpil because e ery pupil is entitled to residencein the vihare so long as he conducts himself properly as a member of theSangha. Scholarship, renown or the rendering of service in the fieldof education docs not confer on a bhikkhu entitled to residence in a vihareany special right or claim as against the rightful Viharadhipati.
To succeed, the appellant must prove facts and circumstances fromwhich a clear inference of a renunciation by Ratanapala can be drawn.This he hasT failed to do. His appeal must therefore fail and isdismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.Voct Bh. 1 Tit. 1 s. >2.
Pcllk, J.—I agree.
1 PtmnanaiKhi V. Weliwitiyc Soruthn, -51 -V. L. Jl.