Mallehewa Pannananda Thero vs. Sumangala Thero and Another – sllr 2012 volume 1 page 398

In the case between Malhewa Pannananda Thero (plaintiff) and Sumangala Thero and others (defendants), the court addressed whether a claim to the office of Viharadhipathi is subject to prescription under Section 34 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance. It was held that such a claim is not prescribed by law, reaffirming the principle that mere occupation or dispossession does not confer prescriptive title to the incumbency. The decision relied on statutory interpretation of Section 34 and precedent set in Dhammananda Thero v. Suddananda Thero, emphasizing the continuing role of Sisyanu Sisya Paramparawa in determining the rightful officeholder. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Abeyratne J. — The findings established that the claim to the office of Viharadhipathi is not subject to pr