Basnagoda Hemaloka v. Sandanangama Attadassi – sllr 1991 volume 2 page 224

In the case of Basnagadoda Hemaloka (substituted plaintiff-appellant represented by Rev. Pasgammana Ratnasara) versus Sandanangama Attadassi (respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the appointment of Viharadhipathi by deed IV7 pertained exclusively to the Sri Maha Viharaya and properties specified in its schedules, or whether it extended to appurtenant temples by implication. The matter involved the construction of deed IV7 under Buddhist Ecclesiastical Law and the application of the pupillary succession rule. It was determined that the office of Viharadhipathi is indivisible and an appointment by deed covering the main temple includes the appurtenant temples unless expressly excluded. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the appointment was valid. The decision reaffirm