022-NLR-NLR-V-59-ATTADASSI-UNNANSE-Appellant-and-INDAJOTHI-UNNANSE-Respondent.pdf
HASXAYAKB, C.J.—alttadussi Unnanse v. Indajothi Unnanse
7 D
1957Present :■ Basnayake, C.J., and Pulle, J.
ATTADASSI TJNNANSE, Appellant, and INDAJOTHI UNNANSE,
Respondent
S. G. 332—D. G. Kandy, 43611L
Buddhist ecclesiastical law—Sisyanusisya paramparawa—Succession when incumbentdies leaving no pupils—Chain of pupillary succession
When tlio incumbent of a Viharo to which tho ru!o of Sisyanusisya Param-parawa dies without leaving a pupil, the lino of pupillary succession booomesextinct, and the right of appointing his successor is vested in the Sangha. Itcannot be contended that the chain of pupillary succession includes not only. the descending lino but also, when the descending lino becomes extinct, theuscending lino.
./^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Kandy.
II. W. Jciycivardene, Q.C., with P. Itamisinghe, for Defendant-Appellant.
N.E. Wecrasoorici, Q.G., with TP. D. Guna-sekara, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
March 6, 1957. Basnayake, C.J.—
Tin's is an action by Kotmale Indajothi Unnanse against Kehel-gamuwa Attadassi Unnanse praying that he bo declared Viharadhipathiof Udawela Vihare and that he be placed in possession of that Vihareand its temporalities, and that the defendant be ejected therefrom. 'It is common ground that Swarnajothi Thero was the original incumbentof Niyangampaya Vihare.' He was succeeded by Werawela Ratnajothiwho in turn was. succeeded by Pasbage Indasara. Indasara had four
80BASNAYAICE, C.T.—AUadassi Unnanse v. Indajothi Unnanse . '•
pupils of whom we need refer only to Kehelgamuwe Gunaratana. Hehad seven or eight pupils (the evidence is not definite) of whom we needmention only Dekinde Piyaratne, Halcurugamuwe Ratnajothi, Kehel-gamuwe Dewarakkhita, Kehelgamuwe Seelaratne and Galketij'agamaRatanajothi. Gunaratana ' was incumbent of Niyangampaya andUdawela Vihares. It would appear, that Gunaratana had by deedtransferred the right to the succession to Niyangampaya Vihare to.his.pupil Kehelgamuwe Devarakkitha and the right to. the successionto Udawela Vihare to his pupil Hakurugamuwe Ratnajothi and to hispupils by Sisyanusisya Paramparawa. Devarakkitha disrobed in 1952and was succeeded by his pupil the defendant Attadassi. The plaintiffKotmale Indajothi is a pupil of Dekinde Piyaratana, the senior pupil ofGunaratana. Piyaratana died in February 1944. In that year Hakuru-gamuwe Ratnajothi executed a deed by wliich he conveyed UdawelaVihare to his brother bhikkhu Kehelgamuwe Devarakkhitta and afterDevarakkhita’s death to Devananda who was at that time a minorand not mature enough to assume the control of the Vihare. Deva-rakkhitta disrobed in 1952 and in 1953 Devananda disrobed. Thelatter had no pupil. Now the question we have to decide is whetheron the disrobing of Devananda the line of succession to Uduwela Viharebecame extinct. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that whena line of pupillary succession becomes extinct the succession notionallyreverts to the original tutor and through him to his senior pupil andthe senior pupil’s pupil. According to the expert evidence on the rulesof Buddhist ecclesiastical succession and reproduced at p. 506 of thetwentieth volume of the New Law Reports, it would appear that whenthe incumbent of a vihare to which the rule of Sisyanusisya Paramparaivasuccession applies dies without leaving a pupil, the right of appointinghis successor is vested in the Sangha. In the case of temples whichrecognise the hegemony of the Malwatte or the Asgiriya Chapters theright to appoint a Viharadhipati to a vihare the succession to which hasbecome extinct is in the Chapter of Asgiriya or Malwatte as the casemay be. The use of the expression “ chain of pupillary succession ”in the answers of some of the learned Bhikkhus who gave expert evidencein the case of Dhammaratne Unnanse v. Sumanagala Unnanse1 hasgiven room for the argument addressed to us by learned counsel for therespondent that the chain of succession includes not only the descendingline but when the descending line becomes extinct the ascending line.We are unable to accept that view of pupillary succession. On theevidence given by the learned Bhikkhus in Dhammaratne Unnanse v.Sumangala Unnanse (supra) it is quite clear that when an incumbentdies leaving no pupils the line is extinct and. his successor must beappointed by the Sangha. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled tosucceed and his action must be"dismissed. •''.* ~
The defendant has in his answer asked that he be declared Viharadhi-pathi of Udawela Vihare. The defendant is a pupil of Devarakkithaand not of Devananda and therefore has no right to Udawela Vihare.He also claimed the right to succeed to Udawela Vihare on theground that Vihare was appurtenant to Niyangampaya Vihare of
1 (29JO) 24 2sT. L. B. 400.
WEERASOORIY.A, J.—David v. Municipal Sanitary Inspector
81
which Devarakkitha had been Viharadliipathi, but the learned trialJudge has rejected that claim and we are not disposed to disturb thatfinding.•
We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned DistrictJudge declaring the plaintiff Viharadhipathi of Udawela Vihare andordering him to be placed in possession thereof and for ejectment ofthe defendant. The appellant is entitled to his costs of appeal.
Pclle, J.—I agree.
A-ppeal allowed.