JANARDAN MAHASUARA Vs. KASINATH MAHASUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Defendants 1(a) to c1(e) in O.S. No. 134 of 1977 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Puri (presently Civil Judge (Sr. Division)), Puri is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1979 passed in that suit by allowing the claim of the plaintiffs/Respondents 1 to 6.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed the suit in their representative capacity claiming to be representing the Suaras and Mahasuaras in the Temple of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, Puri. They brought the suit claiming 20 'Kheis' which according to them has been allowed to be appropriated by Mahasuaras as per the decision of the Administrator of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri vide order dated 4-9-1964 (Ext. 2) and the confirming judgment of the Appeal Committee on 10-8-1977 (Ext. 4). As asserted by the plaintiffs, though Suaras and Mahasuaras belong to the same community of Sebayats performing the same rights, duties and obligation from the time immemorial and duly recorded as such in the Record-of-rights prepared in that behalf and for that they being managing the affairs through the association of Suaras and Mahasuaras termed as 'Nijoga', yet the aforesaid orders of the Temple Administrator and the Appeal Committee has interfered with the right and entitlement of the whole community covered by the said 'Nijoga'. Accordingly, inter alia, they have prayed for a decree for entitlement to the said 20 'Kheis' in favour of the Nijoga to be properly shared, by the said 'Nijoga' and its members.

(3.) In that suit plaintiffs made three persons as the defendants, namely, Sri Krushna Chandra Maha- suara as Defendant No. 1, the Administrator of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri as Defendant No. 2 and Sri Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee as Defendant No. 3. It has been pleaded in the plaint as well as in an application under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. filed seeking the leave of the Court to allow the said Defendant No. 1 to represent himself and other Mahasuaras who join hands with him in disputing the title of 'Nijoga' to the said daily 'Kheis'. As stated by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs/ Respondents, on 18.2.1978 order was passed by the trial court that service of notice under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. was accepted as sufficient. It is also not disputed at the Bar that after such publication of such notice, one Chinta- mani Mahasuara and others filed application to be added as defendants, and their application being rejected by the Court below, they approached this Court in Civil Revision No. 487 of 1978. On 5.1.1979 learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed that revision and that decision is reported in Chintamani Mahasuar and others v. Kasinath Mahasuar. In that decision also this Court held that "The suit was filed on 12th December, 1977 and the requisite permission of the Court was obtained under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code." The hearing of the suit proceeded in which Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement contesting to the claim of the plaintiffs not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of the Mahasuaras. His defence plea, inter alia, was that Suaras and Mahasuaras are not mutually inclusive and the Mahasuaras are exclusively entitled to the suit 'Kheis' and the plaintiffs have no right to claim that 'Kheis'.