MADHU SUDAN PANDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Judge, Berhampur, dismissing T. S. No. 20 of 1973. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Madhusudan Panda having died, his legal heirs have been substituted in his place as appellant Nos. 1 (a) to (e).

(2.) THE plaintiff brought the aforesaid suit praying for a decree (i) declaring that the suit property was not the public trust but the personal property of Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami and that even otherwise, the transfer of the said property in favour of the plaintiff was for legal necessity and as such binding on defendant Nos. 5 and 6, and defendant No. 1 could not take action under Sections 19 and 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951; (ii) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff; (iii) granting injunction restraining defendant No. 3; and to grant cost of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 5 Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami having died was represented by his Chela Narayan Das defendant No. 5 (a).

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments and the Secretary to the Commissioner, jointly filed a written statement, and so also defendant Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the Tahasildar, Chhatrapur, and the Collector, Ganjam, respectively. Defendant No. 5(a) and defendant No. 8 filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 7 died before filing the written statement. On the death of Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami, defendant. No. 5, one Narayan Das, the Chela of the aforesaid Mahant, was allowed to represent the deceased Mahant as defendant No. 5 (a). Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 adopted common plea in their written statements. While denying the plaint allegations on material points they pleaded that the suit land was the property of defendant No. 6, i.e, Sri Sri Laxminrushimha Swami, Bije at Haradakhandi Math of Berhampur, and not the personal property of either the Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami or his predecessor Mahants. The usufructs of the suit property were used towards the offerings before the deity of the Math, and the sale of the suit property by Mahant defendant No. 5 in favour of the plaintiff was a collusive transaction and not binding on the deity defendant No. 6. According to their pleadings, the Mahants of the Math had never kept any distinct identity of so called personal properties and all these properties were acquired from out of the income of the Math. Even if some properties were ostensibly purchased in the name of the Mahant, those properties could not be said to be the personal properties of the Mahants. The aforesaid defendants further pleaded that the litigations referred to in the plaint were all collusion of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5, 7 and 8, and the decisions thereof could not bind defendant. No. 6. The suit property being the property of defendant No. 6 Math were liable to be delivered to defendant No. 6 under Section 25 of the O.H.R.E. Act. Their further plea was that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Defendant No. 8 in his written statement while denying the plaintiff's case supported the case of defendant No. 6 Math. He pleaded that the suit property was not the personal property of either Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami, defendant No. 5, or his predecessor Mahants and that without permission of the Commissioner of Endowments, the suit property could not have been sold and the suit property being trust property of defendant No. 6 Math, the action of defendant No. 1 Commissioner of Endowments was justified and as per law. He, however, claimed that out of the suit property, the lands covered by survey plot Nos. 243, 244 and 245 under Patta No. 237 did not belong either to defendant No. 5 Mahant or defendant No. 6 Math, but the same was recorded in the Revenue records for which the said lands had been excluded from O.L.R. Case No. 1108/67 over which defendant No. 7 and his sons alongwith defendant No. 8 had occupancy right.