032-SLLR-SLLR-1981-2-MANIS-ALIAS-MANISA-v.-MARTHELIS-APPUHAMY.pdf
CA
Mam's Alias Manisa v. Marthelis Appuhamy (Rodrigo, J.j
429
MANIS ALIAS MANISAV.
MARTHELIS APPUHAMY
COURT Of APPEALABDUL CADER. J AMO RODRIGO. JC A 90 76 IM. C CIVILiM C NEGOMBO 1744 LDECEMBER 3. 1981
Kapurala I- succession to the office hereditary.
The iufc"*.s or to thp office of Kjpu'ala is established by ancient custom. It ishereditary An outsider cannot order any circumstance* succeed a Kapurala. Thesuccessors will always be a iwmbr' ol the Kapurala families.
Case referred to :
Nugaweta IBainayake Nitarnei v Mnhathafa t194bl 47 NLR i /.
D. R. P. Coonetillake for defendant-appellantNo appearances lot respondent and he is absent.
Cur adv vu't.
December 18, 1981
RODRIGO, J.
This action is concerned with the claim of the plaintiff to have ahereditary right to fill the office of "Kapurala” that had fallenvacant in the Paththini Devale attached to Galkanda Temple. Thedefendant having forcibly furstrated the attempt of the plaintiffto fill such office, the plaintiff has filed this action for a declara-tion that he is entitled by hereditary succession to fill the vacantoffice. The Judge of first instance has held with him and given thedeclaration asked for. The defendant has appealed.
The defendant disputes the assertion of the plaintiff thatthe Kapurala in a Devale assumes office by hereditary succession,and he claims that the office has customarily been filled byappointment at a meeting of lay devotees from the four"Peruwas” of the Devale. Before discussing these respective claimsI shall turn to give an account of the facts of the case. This Devaleis called by the parties Paththini Devale. It is, however, not the
430
Sri Lanka Law Reports
i 1981/2 S.L.R.
Paththini Devale of Kandy which is one of the four chief Devalesin Kandy associated with the Dalada Maiigawa {Tooth RelicTemple). This is 3 village Devaie of ancient origin dedicated to theGoddess Paththini and does not stand by itself but forms part of avillage Vihara called the Gaikanda Vihara situated in the NegomboDistrict. Both the Vihara and the Devale are in terms of theBuddhist Trninuralities Ordinance of 1931— vide s. 10 and 11 —in the custody, control and management of the Viharadipathi whois the trustee, this Vihara being exempted from the operation ofs. 4( 1) of the said Ordinance.
The plaintiff claims a hereditary right of succession to theoffice of Kapuraia in this Vihara. It is not in dispute that oneAdikari Appuhamilage Kaluhamy was the Kapuraia of this Devalelong years ago so far as the family of the plaintiff could tracethe pedigree. The Vihara is ancient. The plaintiff is a member thatcomes down the line of ancestors from this Kaluhamy. It hasalways been a member of this lineage that had performed thefunctions of this office hitherto. This is the finding of the trialJudge. Accordingly the plaintiff's father Hendrick officiated dsKapuraia till he died. Then the plaintiff succeeded him. Thedispute, however, arose on account of there having been twoKapuralas functioning in this place. This Devale consisted of tworooms or sub divisions which is not unusual. The practicepresumably grew to accommodate more than one member of theKapuraia family. Both Kapuralas did not officiate on the sameday. They took turns but performed in the separate rooms ondifferent days by agreement. So that when Hendrick wasKapuraia, an uncle of the plaintiff was also Kapuraia performingalternatively with Hendrick. On Hendrick's death the plaintiffsucceeded as his son and officiated with the plaintiff's uncle, oneSimon. Simon died issueless. Therefore the plaintiff as a hereditarymember succeeded him and became or tried to become the soleKapuraia. The defendant is a total stranger to the plaintiff'spedigree. He is alleged to have assisted Simon when he was illbefore his death. He is now seeking to succeed Simon. Since hehad no claim to hereditary succession he appears to have organi-sed a meeting of the lay devotees of this temple by getting somenotices printed and distributed convening a meeting of the laydevotees, expecting them to sponsor his appointment as Kapuraiain succession to Simon. But the meeting had ended in disarraywithout any business being transacted.
A Devale is an ancient local institution constituting a place ofworship. Though it is a place of Buddhist worship and is thereforecalled a "temple" in the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance of1931 — s.2 — as much as does a Vihara, it is distinct in originand mode of worship It is dedicated to Hindu gods and thepersons officiating in it an- not Buddhist priests. From ancient
CA
Man is Alias Manisa v. Marthelis Appuhamy (Rodrigo, J.)
431
times there have been laymen called Kapuwas. There can be morethan one Kapuwa and the chief Kapuwa attracted the honorificaddition of "Rala" and came to be called "Kapurala''. TheKapurala of Paththini Devale is usually called "Paththini-hamy."Though the Devale here is a Paththini Devale the plaintiff callshimself "Kapurala." Dr. Hayley in his Treatise on the Laws andCustoms of the Sinhalese says:—
"The popular religion is, therefore, an amalgamation of theBuddhist faith with the worship of certain gods, whose nature,names and cttributes, have become to some extent localized,but most of whom can be sufficiently identified with the gods
of the Hindus of India, or Tamils of CeylonKataragama,
so-called from the village in which this most famous temple issituated, is Karttikeya, another name for Skanda, the son ofSiva. Kattini, the Lady, is a goddess. To these and other less1important deities many temples, called devales, are dedicated,often situated side by side with Buddhist vihares."*
The succession to the office of Kapurala is established by anci-ent custom.
The case of Nugaweta (Basnayake Nilame) v. Mohathala1 wasconcerned with the succession to the office of Kapurala. The Bas-nayake Nilame, the trustee of the Devale, claimed a right toappoint the Kapurala. Said, Soertsz, A. C. J. at page 18
"The defendant (Basnayake Nilame) is unable to adduce asingle instance in respect of any Devale in which a stranger hasbeen appointed Kapurala. He says that in regard to the Devaleconcerned in this action 'I was under the impression that thesepeople were hereditary Kapuralas as in the other Devaies,' buthe appears to have taken a different view when for the firsttime he found out that there were no 'kapu pangua' attachedto the Alutnuwara Devale. Neither the appellant nor hisCounsel was able to show that the hereditary quality of aKapurala's office was dependent on whether or not a "pan-guwa" was attached to the office. The dictum in Dr. Hayley'sbook on Sinhalese Laws and Customs at page 532 indicatesthat this hereditary quality of the office applied without anydiscrimination to all Kapuralaships. He says, "The priests
called Kapuwas, Kapuralas or Pattinihamisappointed
by the villagers or lay managers do not belong to any order,
Dr. Hayley's Practice on the Laws and Customs of the Sinhalese, p. 532.
432
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1981]2 S.L.R.
but conduct the ceremonies of each temple according tocustom, usually learned from relations whom they succeed inoffice." I am unable to subscribe to Mr. H. V. Perera's conten-tion that the words 'whom they succeed in office’ meannothing more than a fortuitous succession of instances and donot mean that such is the established custom. I find it impossi-ble myself to resist the conclusion to which the trial Judgecame when he held that the office is hereditary, it being left tothe Kapurala family to make such arrangements for the perfor-mance of the services as expediency and convenience dictatedsubject to the approval of the Basnayake Nilame who, clearly,enjoys the control and management of the devales and could,therefore, impose reasonable terms and conditions which, inthe long course of time, have become more or less well estab-lished."
It is a well established principle that an outsider cannot underany circumstances succeed a Kapurala. The successor will alwaysbe a member of one of the Kapurala families.**,
We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of firstinstance and dismiss this appeal. Since there was no appearance forthe plaintiff-respondent we do not award him costs of this appeal.
ABDUL CADER.J.I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
Walter Pereira's Laws of Ceylon, p. 143.