019-SLLR-SLLR-1991-V2-BASNAGODA-HEMALOKA-V.-SANDANANGAMA-ATTADASSI.pdf
224
Sri Lanka Law Reporti
[1991] 2 Sri L.R.
BASNAGODA HEMALOKA
V.
SANDANANGAMA ATTADASSI
SUPREME COURT.
BANDARANAYAKE, J., FERNANDO, J. AND KULATUNGA, J.
S. C. APPEAL NO. 6/90.
S. C. SPL. L.A. NO. 3/90,
A. NO. 482/76 (F).
C. GAMPAHA NO. L6242/L.
FEBRUARY 11, 1991.
Buddhist Ecclesiastical Law – Right to main temple carries with it rightto appurtenant temples – Office of Viharadhipathy is indivisible – Succession.
Where it was conceded that the Sri Maha Viharaya is the main temple,the appurtenant temples go with it • the office of Viharadhipathy beingindivisible. In the case of a temple having appurtenant temples the appurte-nant temples are merged with the main temple and the succession to theoffice of Viharadhipathi or the appointment of a pupil to succeed in suchoffice has to be with reference to the main temple and the Viharadhipathi ofthe main temple is entitled to the appurtenant temples. Where the claimarises by virtue of an appointment, no reference to the appurtenant templesby name is required. The defendant -respondent though the junior pupil, hav-ing become entitled to the Viharadhipathiship of Sri Maha Viharaya byvirtue of a deed, becomes entitled to the appurtenant temples. An incumbentof a Buddhist temple is entitled to appoint any particular pupil as his succes-sor.
Cases referred to:
Dhammajoti v. Sobita 16 NLR 408, 409.
Saraoankara Unnanse v. Indajothi Unnanse 20 NLR 385.
Piyaratne Unnanse v. Sonuththara Unnanse 36 NLR 236.
Piyatissa Terunnanse v. Saranapala Terunnanse 40 LR 262.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal.
A. C. Cooneratne Q.C. with Champaka Ladduwahetty for Appellant.
P. A. D. Samarasekera P.C. with W. p. Senanayake for Respondent.
Cur.adv.vulf.
I
SC Basnagoda Hemalolca v. Sandanangama Attadassi (Kulatvnga, J.)225
March 28, 1991.
KULATUNGA, J.
This is an appeal by the substituted plaintiff-appellant fromthe judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed thejudgment of the District Court in the above action and interms of which Rev. Sandanangama Attadassi the defendant-respondent was declared the Viharadhipathi of Radawana SriMaha Viharaya and its appurtenant temples. Rev. Pasgam-mana Ratnasara the originial plaintiff-appellant instituted thisaction claiming to be the Viharadhipathi of these temples asthe successor to the late Rev. Diyawala Jinananda under therule of pupillary succession as against the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-appellant was eligible to have so suc-ceeded in the normal course as the most senior pupil of Jina-nanda as against the defendant-respondent who is the pupilnext in seniority to him. However, the defendant-respondentclaimed that by deed IV7 Rev. Jinananda had appointed himto succeed as the Viharadhipathi of the said temples.
The plaintiff-appellant came to Court claiming that SriJinendraramaya was the main temple of which Sri Maha Viha-raya the Pirivena and Abinawaramaya alias Jayawardenara-maya were appurtenant temples. The case for the defendant-respondent was that the Sri Maha Viharaya was the maintemple and the other three temples were appurtenant to it andthe deed IV7 conveyed to him all these temples. The learnedDistrict Judge held with the defendant-respondent and deli-vered judgment declaring him to be the Viharadhipathi anddismissing the action of the plaintiff-appellant who appealedtherefrom to the Court below. That Court affirmed the judg-ment of the District Court and dismissed the appeal.
The only point urged by Mr. A. C, Gooneratne Q.C., onbehalf of the plaintiff-appellant before the Court of Appealand on behalf of the substituted plaintiff-appellant before thisCourt is that IV7 conferred on the defendant-respondent the
226
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(1991} 2 Sri L.R.
Viharadhipathiship of Sri Maha Viharaya only and thereforethe other three temples devolved by right of pupillary succes-sion on the senior pupil namely the plaintiff-appellant. Thefinding of the District Court that Sri Maha Viharaya is themain temple is no longer canvassed. The learned Queen’sCounsel’s present submission is that the determination of thequestion was purely on an interpretation of the deed IV7 andtherefore a question of law that had to be decided on the cor-rect interpretation of IV7; that according to the grammaticaland ordinary meaning of the words used in the deed, the granttherein is confined to the Sri Maha Viharaya and the twolands described in the Schedule to the said deed; that, the Dis-trict Judge could never have answered the issue relating to theViharadhipathiship without a correct construction of the deed,even though this point was not specifically raised before him;and that it is a pure question of law and could be raised forthe first time in appeal.
The relevant portions of IV7 read —
“AND WHEREAS the said Diyawala Sri JinanandaNayake Thero took unto himself and robed five pupils whoare in the order of robing as follows. Pasgammana RatnasaraThero, Sandanangama Attadassi Thero
AND WHEREAS the said Diyawala Sri Jinananda NayakeThero is now desirous of nominating and constituting andappointing the next in order of robing his senior pupil Sanda-nangama Attadassi Thero to succeed to the office of lawfulincumbent Controlling Viharadhipathi and Adikari Bikshu ofthe said temple which is fully and particularly described inSchedule No. 1 hereto and its appurtenants fully and particu-larly described in Schedule No. 2 hereto which are of the reas-onable value of Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000).
AND WHEREAS the said Diyawala Sri Jinananda NayakeThero considering the implicit disloyalty sees reason to discardthe said Pasgammana Ratnasara Thero from succeeding as
sc
Basaagoda Hemaloka v. Sandanangama Attadassi (Kulatunga, J.)
227
lawful incumbent Controlling Viharadhipathi and Adikari Bik-shu of the said temple and its temporalities.
AND WHEREAS the said temple and its temporalities areexempt from s.4 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance.
NOW KNOW YE AND THESE PRESENTS WITNES-SETH that in pursuance of the said desire and in considera-tion of the reasons aforesaid and diverse other good causesand consideration hereunto moving and the said Diyawala SriJinananda Nayake Thero for myself or any other claimingfrom me whether pupillary or otherwise do hereby nominate,constitute and appoint the said Sandanangama AttadassiThero of Sri Maha Viharaya aforesaid to be and to continueas lawful incumbent Controlling Viharadhipathi Adikari Bik-shu and Trustee in such office of the said temple now knownas Purena Sri Maha Viharaya fully and particularly describedin Schedule 2 hereto as my successor in such office upon mydeparting this life.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the office to which I havehereby nominated, constituted and appointed the said Sanda-nangama Attadassi Thero absolutely and against any otherclaiming to be whether pupillary or otherwise and to adminis-ter the said temple and its temporalities”.
The Schedule No. 1 describes the Sri Maha Viharaya and aland called Kongahawatte. The Schedule No. 2 describes aland called Pinwatte.
The learned Queen’s Counsel for the substituted plaintiff-appellant submits that however strongly Rev. Jinananda mayhave expressed his intention to exclude the plaintiff-appellantfrom succeeding to him, he has made the appointment of hissuccessor only to the Sri Maha Viharaya and the two landsdescribed in the schedule; hence the defendant-respondentbecame entitled to the Sri Maha Viharaya and the said landsonly; and the plaintiff-appellant as the senior pupil succeededto the Viharadhipathiship of the other three temples by rightof pupillary succession.
228
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1991; 2 Sri L.R.
The argument of the learned Queen’s Counsel is that evenif the late Rev. Jinananda may have discarded the plaintiff-appellant, everything was not given to the defendant-respondent; that if nothing is said in IV7 about the other tem-ples, the plaintiff-appellant’s right to such temples remainedunaffected; and that the reference to the “temporalities” inIV7 mean only those of the Sri Maha Viharaya.
In English Law “temporalities” means – in a wider sense -the money revenue of a church, derived from pew rents, sub-scriptions, donations, collections, cemetary charges and othersources. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed. P1312. In relation toa temple under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance itmeans the revenues of a temple. This is what Pereira J. meantin Dhammajoti v. Sobita (1) at 409 when he said —
“In times anterior to the passing of the Buddhist Tem-poralities Ordinance (No. 8 of 1905) the manage-
ment and control of the temporalities or revenues of thetemple went hand in hand with the incumbency of thetemple”.
Under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance (Cap. 318)the Viharadhipathi has the control of the revenues of the tem-ple. IV7 appoints the defendant-respondent to succeed to theViharadhipathiship of Sri Maha Viharaya and its “temporali-ties” (meaning its revenues and not appurtenant temples); andhence the submission that upon a grammatical constructionthe deed is confined to Sri Maha Viharaya is correct. If thematter stood at that, the substituted plaintiff-appellant wouldhave succeeded in this appeal.
However, Mr, Samarasekera P.C. for the defendant-respondent submitted that if Sri Maha Viharaya is the maintemple (and this is no longer contested) the appurtenant tem-ples go with it; that the contest is not in respect of any prop-erty but in respect of an office, and the office of Viharadhipa-thi is not divisible. He cited the decision in Saranankara
sc
Basnagoda Hemaloka v. Sandanangama Attadassi (Kulatuoga, J)
229
Unnanse v. Indajothi Unnanse (2) in support. In that case, theplaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they are entitled to theincumbency of a Vihare jointly with the defendant. It was heldthat a Vihare cannot be portioned out in shares whetherdivided or undivided; that the office of incumbent is a singleoffice and cannot be held jointly; that a claim to a share of theincumbency cannot be sustained; and that a Vihare is vested inthe Sangha as a whole and the succession to an incumbencyconnotes the selection for the office”.
In the case of a temple having appurtenant temples theappurtenants are merged with the main temple and the succes-sion to the office of Viharadhipathi or the appointment of apupil to succeed in such office has to be with reference to themain temple and the Viharadhipathi of the main temple isentitled to the appurtenant temples. Where the claim arises byvirtue of an appointment no reference to the appurtenanttemples by name is required. Thus in Piyaratne Unnanse v.Sonuththara Unnanse (3) it was held that Meda Pansala wasappurtenant to Degaldoruwa Vihare and that the 1st plaintiffas the rightful incumbent of Degaldoruwa Vihare was entitledto Meda Pansala.
It follows that by virtue of his appointment under IV7 tosucceed to the Viharadhipathiship of Sri Maha Viharaya thedefendant-respondent became entitled to its appurtenant tem-ples. Presumably, it was to defeat this right that in the Dis-trict Court the plaintiff-appellant took up the position thatJinendraramaya is the main temple of which Sri Maha Viha-raya is an appurtenant. Had he succeeded in establishing it thedefendant respondent’s claim under IV7 could have beenimpeached. When he failed to establish it he failed entirely andwas left with no rights to any temple. I therefore hold thatboth the District Court and the Court below were right inrejecting his claim. His right of succession under the rule ofpupillary succession has to give way to the appointment madein favour of the defendant-respondent. An incumbent of aBuddhist temple is entitled to appoint any particular pupil as
230
Sri Lenka Law Reports
[1991] 2 Sri L.R.
his successor – Dhammajoti v. Sobita (supra); Piyatissa Terun-nansc v. Saranapala Terunnanse (4).
For the foregoing reasons, I affirm the judgment of theCourt of Appeal and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Bandaranayake, J. — I agree.
Fernando, J. — I agree.
Appeal dismissed.