GOVINDA JIEW THAKUR Vs. SURENDRA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants in the First Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Sri B. Misra, Subordinate Judge of Balasore, arising out of a suit for declaration of title of the deity Govinda Jiew Thakur, plaintiff No. 1 and for recovery of possession of the disputed properties with an acreage 19,99 acres. Plaintiff No. 1, the deity, is situated in Bhadrak and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the trustees representing the deity and were appointed as trustees by the Endowment Commissioner. THE contesting defendants 1 to 18 are the transferees in respect of the disputed properties on the basis of three sale-deeds and all of them being of 22nd January, 1927. One of the sale deeds was in favour of defendants 1 to 3 that is, Jena transferees; the second one was in favour of the defendants 4 to 8, that is Rout transferees; and the third was in favour of defendants 9 to 18, that is, Misra transferees. Defendant No. 19 is the Ex-Mahant who has since been removed and plaintiffs 2 and 3 have been appointed as trustees by the Endowment Commissioner. THE plaintiffs' case is that the properties in dispute are the endowed properties belonging to the deity, plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 10's father Chandra Sekhar executed a mortgage transaction on 6th April, 1908, (Ext. B) in respect of 17 acres and 68 decimals in favour of Bandhu Misra, that is, the ancestor of defendants 9 to 18. THEre was also a second mortgage dated 19th February, 1909, in respect of 20 acres of the endowed properties in favour of the ancestor of defendants 4 to 8. On 22nd January, 1927, Defendant No. 19 Durgacharan being represented by mother guardian Hara Dasi executed these three sale deeds (Exts. A, G and I) as personal properties belonging to Durgacharan. As these transactions are not binding upon the deity, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(2.) THE defence is to the effect that the properties are not debottar properties and further there is no such deity in existence as Govinda Jiew. But the main point taken by the defence was the point of limitation on the assertion that the transferees were in possession of the properties for all times since the year 1927. It is to be noted that the present suit was filed on the 2nd September, 1950. THE plaintiffs also came with a case that the three transactions which are sought to be impugned in the present suit are Benami transactions and that no consideration passed and that they were not supported by legal necessity.