Source: https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/1977/12/31/dhammananda-thero-v-dhammapala-thero/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:16:57+00:00

Document:
1939Present: Moseley A.C.J. and Soertsz S.P.J.
DHAMMANANDA THERO v. DHAMMAPALA THERO.
Buddhist ecclesiastic law—The appointment of successor by incumbent—Application to disrobe and re-robe the pupil of another priest—Terms ofletter—Validity of appointment.
The incumbent of a temple who had an only pupil the defendant, aSamanera, applied to the Mahanayake to have the plaintiff, Upasampadapupil of another priest, to be disrobed and re-robed in his name as his.pupil.
In his application the grounds alleged were that the. incumbent was“ sick and confined to bed since two months and as there is no elderlyUpasampada pupil or junior suited to render assistance to me and totake care of the place and pansalas ”.
Held, that the document did not constitute a selection or appointmentof the plaintiff to succeed to the incumbency&apos;.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him Sri Nissanka and V. F. Gunaratne), forthe plaintiff, appellant.
L. A. Rajapakse (with him J. R. Jayawardana), for the defendant,respondent.
The plaintiff brought this action to establish his claim to the incumbencyof the Keppitiwalana Vihare which was held under the tenure known as &apos;Sisyanusisya paramparawa. The incumbency became vacant upon &apos;thedeath of Hunupola Dhammapala on February 19, i933. On September 11,1931, the defendant was robed by and became a pupil of the deceased.
286 MOSELEY A.C.J.—Dhammananda There v. Dhammapala Thero.
though such Samanera has been longer in robes than an Upasam-pada monk?
District Judge : In view of the answers to the issues (2), (3), (4), (5)and (6) the answer to issue (1) is not necessary.
Was the plaintiff robed by the late Hunupola Dhammapala?
<4) If he was, was he the senior pupil of the late H. Dammapala uponthe latter’s death in February, 1933 ?
<5) Did the plaintiff succeed to the Adikariship upon the death of thelate H. Dammapala in February, 1933 ?
<6) If he did not succeed in the Adikariship in February, 1933, did hesucceed in May, 1933, after the ordination ?
The plaintiff’s action was dismissed. From that order he appeals.
documents produced by the plaintiff, it is not impossible to come to theconclusion that the deceased realizing his incapacity through illness, andthe youth of the defendant, desired that he himself should be assisted byan older priest and for that reason wished the plaintiff to become his ownpupil. That seems to me to be some way from selecting the plaintiff tosucceed him in the incumbency.
The bona fides of the plaintiff’s documents was attacked by Counselfor the respondent, but in the lower Court the learned Judge does notappear to have been impressed, and it will be noticed that the issue inregard to the re-robing of the plaintiff by the deceased was answered inthe plaintiff&apos;s favour. These documents would certainly appear to beopen to suspicion, but I do not propose to differ from the learned Judge’sfinding in this respect. It is undisputed that immediately after thefuneral ceremonies following upon the deceased’s death the plaintiff wentoff to the Pirivena some miles distant and remained there for a, year.During that period the defendant officiated as Adikari and his right to doso does not appear to have been questioned.
Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice two recently decidedcases (Saddkananda Tissa Therunnanse v. Gunananda Therunnanse 1 andSaranapala Therunnanse v. Piyatissa Therunnanse 2), in which it was heldthat selection in such a case need not necessarily be by deed or last will,but in each of those cases there was a writing which clearly indicatedthat a selection for appointment had been made. As I have alreadyobserved in the present case, it would be unsafe to infer a selection fromthe wording of the document.
I agree with the learned Judge that the plaintiff has failed to provethat he was the selected successor to the incumbency, and that his actionwas properly dismissed.

References: v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.