JAGANATH Vs. TIRTHANANDA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffappellant under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that he is the sebayat of Deity Lord Jaganath to whom the suit properties belong and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff Mahanta Ganga Das is a chela of the late Mahanta Dhyan Das, who was the previous Mahanta of Bhaga Akahada Math situated at Puri. Mahanta Dhyan Das died on 20-6-41 and the plaintiff, claiming to have been elected on 13-7-41 by a Punch of Mahantas, to succeed the deceased Dhyan Das as Mahanta of the said Math, asserts his title to the properties which admittedly constitute an endowment of the Deity Lord Jaganath. The defendant, Mahanta Tirthananda Das, is the Mahanta of Pandu Math situated in Cuttack district and he claims to have been put in possession of the suit properties through Court, in pursuance of an execution sale held on 10-3-42. His case is that the late Mahanta Dhyan Das had contracted loans from him, for meeting the necessary expenses of the Deity, of which the deceased Mahanta was the Sebayat, and that he had executed in his favour a registered bond dated 10-7- 20 and a handnote dated 6-7-30. For recovery of the amounts due to him under these bonds the defendant filed a suit in O. S. No. 40 of 1933 in the Court of the Second Munsif, Cut-tack, and obtained a decree for 3399/- and odd. In execution of that decree, the suit properties were put to sale and purchased by the defendant decree-holder. The defendant subsequently took delivery of possession on the 7th and 18th of June 1942. Meanwhile, the plaintiff Ganga Das filed a suit for declaration of his title to, and for recovery of possession of the Math and its properties in original Suit No. 5 of 1942, from one Dharmananda Das who was then in possession of the same as the duly constituted chela of the deceased Mahanta Dhyan Das on the strength of a will said to have been made by the deceased Mahanta on 17-6-41 three days prior to his death. That suit ended in the compromise whereby Dharmananda Das gave up his claim and admitted the plaintiff's right to succeed to the Mahantaship of the Bhaga Akhada Math. In execution of the compromise decree, the plaintiff took delivery of the possession of the suit properties through Court on 22-1-43. The defendant having thus been dispossessed filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 1944. This petition having been allowed he was restored to possession on 16-9-1944. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, namely, Title Suit No. 40 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendant upon declaration of title.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that the decree obtained by the defendant in O. S. No. 40 of 1933 against the deceased Mahanta Dhyan Das was collusive, that the money borrowed by him from the defendant was not for purpose binding on the Deity, that the Deity to whom the properties belong was not properly represented either by the deceased in the suit, or by his chela Dharmananda in the subsequent execution proceedings. The court sale in favour of the defendant is, therefore, attacked as having been wrongfully and fraudulently brought about. It is accordingly contended that no title passed to the defendant by reason of the court sale and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the properties from him.