BRAHMIN NIJOG Vs. BADU NIJOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All three appeals have been filed against a reversing judgment. In Second Appeal No. 260 of 2002 the appellant and the respondent No. 10 are the plaintiffs who had filed Title Suit No. 166/91(1) subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No. 262/95. Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 in Second Appeal No. 255/2002 who are appellants in Second Appeal No. 268/2002 had filed Title Suit No. 314/91 in the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Bhubaneswar. Title Suit No. 166/91 by order of this Court was transferred to the Court of the SubJudge, Bhubaneswar to be heard along with Title Suit No. 314/91 in Civil Revision No. 272/92 and accordingly the said suit was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 262/95 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. Both the suits were heard together and in a common judgment the suits were decreed in part. Challenging the same defendant Badu Nijog filed two Title Appeals and both the appeals having been allowed in a common judgment the aforesaid three Second Appeals have been filed.

(2.) Title, Suit No. 166/91 (subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No. 262/95) had been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of Brahmana Nijog Samiti who are sevakas of Lord Lingaraj at Bhubaneswar. The suit had been filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar praying for permanent injunction against the respondents from implementing resolution dated 11-11-1991 of the Board of Trustees of the temple of Lord Lingaraj thereby resuscitating decree dated 18-1-1951 passed on compromise by the learned Sub-Judge, Purl in O.S. No. 84 of 1949. Title Suit No. 314/91 was filed by Pujapanda Sevayat Samiti against Badu Nijog in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for declaration that the compromise decree is illegal, invalid, in-operative and is not binding against them and that Trust Board has no right to interfere in sevapuja of Lord Lingaraj. It was further prayed for a declaration that the Trust Board has no right to introduce the ticket system and collect money from the pilgrims and the Trust Board should be restrained permanently from implementing its resolution dated 11-11-91 and the compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 84 of 1949. From the record it further appears that in O. S. No. 314/91 prayer for injunction having been refused, the matter was carried to this Court in Civil Revision No. 272/92 and while disposing of the said revision on 12-3-1993 this Court found that both the suits have more or less similar prayers and accordingly directed transfer of O. S. No. 166/91 from the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar and for analogous hearing of both the suits by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, both the suits were heard together and disposed of in a common judgment.

(3.) Case of the plaintiff in both the suits is that temple of Lord Lingaraj was established by the rulers of Keshari Dynasty who had arranged 36 kinds of Seva pujas of Lord Lingaraj by appointing different types of sevaks. The rituals in the temple and the rights of sevaks inter se, vis-a-vis the Lord Lingaraj, are regulated by custom and tradition having the force of law. The Sevaks of Lord Lingaraj are broadly divided into two categories, i.e. Brahmin Sevakas including Pujapandas and the non-brahmin sevaks like Badu Nijog. The Brahmin sevaks excluding the Pujapandas have formed Brahman Nijog and the Pujapanda Sevaks have formed Pujapanda Nijog and non-Brahmin sevakas have their respective Nijog , one of which is Badu Nijog. Pujapandas perform all kinds of worships, beginning from Alati to the final rituals of offering food stuff which is technically called Eadasinghara. These services offered by or at the instance of the worshippers or pilgrims come within the sweep of services rendered by the Brahmin sevakas. The services rendered to the Lord Lingaraj are of 36 kinds of which the Brahmin Nijog Samiti renders 18 types of services and accordingly it receives remuneration from out of the "KOTHA BHOGA" from the temple fund and this remuneration is known as "KHEI". The Brahmin sevakas get remuneration from the persons at whose instruction the services are offered and this remuneration is technically known as "DAKHINA". The members of Brahman Nijog have been enjoying this right to appropriate DAKHINA by rendering various services as stated above exclusively to the exclusion of Lord Lingaraj and thus have acquired indefeasable right to perform the aforesaid sevapuja of Lord Lingaraj. Pujapanda sevaks are the only sevaks who perform the puja of Lord Lingaraj in the temple and also when the deity comes outside the temple in festive days. According to the Pujapanda sevaks though Lord Lingaraj has different sevakas such as Badu, Supakar etc., no sevak has any right to perform puja of the deity except the members of the said Samiti. Each of the Pujapandas has his monthly turn by right of inheritance and accordingly performs the duty of Pujapanda. The Pujapandas are enjoying homestead and agricultural land and are also getting Chanda. Khei and Dahlna for performing puja for the pilgrims. The Badu Nijpg are larger in number and they had filed a civil suit before the Munsif, Purl against the Trust Board of Lord Llngaraj in which both the Brahman Nijog and Pujapanda Nijog were parties. Subsequently, the Badu Nijog deleted the names of Pujapanda Nijpg and Brahman Nijog from the plaint before their appearance and refiled the suit vide O.S. No. 84 of 1949 before the Sub-Judge, Purl and entered into an agreement with the Trust Board behind the back of Pujapanda Nijog and Brahman Nijog and obtained a compromise decree in which it was mentioned that Badu Nijog will receive half of the Vetis and the Trust Board will receive other half of the Vetis. As per the compromise in the said suit every pilgrim who goes to the temple will have to first deposit money before the temple authority as per chart showing different amounts for different pujas and get receipts and only thereafter perform the puja through the sevaks. Though such a decree was passed in the year 1951, only on 11-11-91 the Trust Board passed a resolution to implement the compromise decree passed in the said suit. According to the plaintiffs, the ticket system was never in vague since the inception of the temple and was introduced basing on the compromise decree in O.S. No. 84 of 1949 affecting the interest of other types of sevaks of Lord Lingaraj. Passing of such a resolution with intention to give effect to the compromise decree passed in the said suit gave rise to the cause of action for filing the suits.