SRIDHAR SUAR Vs. JAGANNATH TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and decree dated June, 24, 1974, of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack reversing the judgment and decree dated September 23, 1970, of the first appellate court which in turn reversed the judgment and decree dated April 10, 1970, of the trial Court relates to the controversy regarding the appellants' right to store and sell dry 'Mahaprasad' in the suit premises consisting of two pucca rooms standing on plot No. 167 in Rs. Bihar Bedha' (outer compound) of the Hoary Holy public temple of Lord Jagannath Ji in Puri (hereinafter referred to as Rs. the Temple'), which to use the language of the illuminating and instructive preamble of Shri Jagannath Temple Act. 1954 (Orissa Act No. 11 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as Rs. the Act') has ever since its inception been an institution of unique national importance, in which millions of Hindu devotees from regions far and wide have reposed their faith and belief and have regarded it as the epitome of their tradition and culture.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are:On August 7, 1969, one Gopal Suar, since deceased who was the father and predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants describing himself as sevak of the Temple brought a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Puri, being suit No. 160 of 1969, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his right of storing and selling dry Rs. Mahaprasad' in the suit premises.

(3.) The case of the original plaintiff was that by means of Rs. Sanand' (Exhibit I) Raja Sri Dibyasingha Deb, the then Superintendent of the Temple, granted to his great grandfather, Gangadhar Suar, a permanent lease of the site on which the two suit rooms stood on an annual rent of Rs. 7/-; that it was provided in the 'Sanand' that the grantee or lessee would be entitled to enjoy the site from generation to generation and in case a permanent structure was constructed thereon, the rent would be enhanced to Rs. 14/- per year, that as a result of the death of his great grandfather, Gangadhar Suar, of his grandfather. Bela syar, and of his father, Chakhi Suar, he had become the sole owner of the property; that a few days after the commencement of the lease, two permanent pucca rooms for storing and selling Rs. Mahaprasad' were constructed by his great grandfather, Gangadhar Suar, who according to the stipulation contained in the aforesaid Rs. Sanand' became liable to pay an annual rent of Rupees 14/-; that since the commencement of the lease, his ancestors had from generation to generation been using the suit property as a store room and as a shop for selling dry 'Mahaprasad' in their capacity as tenants of the Raja of Puri who was the Superintendent of the Temple and the said right of his had been acknowledged and duly recorded in the record of rights; that ever since the taking over of the management of the Temple by the Government, he had been paying annual rent as per terms of the lease to the respondents who had accepted him as a tenant; that he had been occupying and enjoying the suit property as before without any let or hindrance either by the respondents or by their predecessor-in-interest; that on August 1, 1969, his son intimated to him that respondent No. 2 had, by means of notice dated July 31, 1969, called upon him to close the shop on pain of daily fine of Rs. 100/. as in the opinion of the respondent, he had been, using the land in inner Bedha of the Temple for storage and sale of 'Mahaprasad' which adversely affected the discipline and dignity of the Temple; that on being so informed, he personally approached respondent No. 2 and represented to him that he was the permanent lessee of the suit property and had acquired indefeasible right of storing and selling 'Mahaprasad' thereon and the respondents could not interfere with that right but his representation fell flat and respondent No. 2 threatened to close his shop forcibly, to impose penalty on him, and to dismiss him for the 'seva'; that after sometime, respondent No. 2 served him with another notice imposing an accumulated penalty of Rs. 4,600/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per diam and that there being no provision in the Act empowering the respondents to do any of the aforesaid things, their action was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.