RAMA CHANDRA MISRA Vs. HADIBANDHU PANDA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two miscellaneous appeals have been filed under section 44 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the common judgment of the Commissioner of Endowments in First Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1980 and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Three persons claiming to be the family members of the founder of the deities Madan Mohan Jew and Radhaballav Jew filed application under section 41 of the Act for a declaration that the deities are Hindu Public Religious Institutions having no hereditary trustees and the properties attached to the deities including the Bijesthalis are the public endowments. According to them the family members of Bhagaban Panda, Baraju Sahu, Aparti Sahu, Panchu Sahu, Shyama Sahu and Govinda Sahu of Hatiagand had installed the deity Madan Mohan Jew and endowed some properties for the seva puja. In 1908 Settlement they were recorded as marfatdars and the villagers of Hatiagand and the neighbouring villages were doing seva puja as of right. Subsequently, the deity Radhaballav Jew was also installed and worshipped. The villagers then brought one Radhamani Dasi who was the Chella of Lalita Dasi from Puri to preach "Krushna-Charitamruta" and gave shelter to said Radhamani in the Devathali of the deities. This Radhamani brought one of her relations, Sri Rama Chandra Misra, who is opposite party No. 6 before the Assistant Commissioner and this opposite party No. 6 was looking after her during her old age. The total extent of properties which the two deities are having is Ac. 7.57 decimals. Taking advantage of the old age of Radhamani, Rama Chandra managed to obtain a registered Seva Samarpan Patra from her by exercising undue influence and practising fraud and sold some of the landed properties without the sanction of the Commissioner of Endowments and misappropriated the sale proceeds of the same. After the death of Radhamani, the devotees of the deities raised objection for which opposite party no. 6 executed a deed on 3-7-1962 wherein it was admitted that the management of the properties would vest with the villagers. But notwithstanding the same, the properties were recorded in 1969 Settlement in the name of opposite party no. 6 and said Rama Chandra did not allow the petitioners to manage the properties. Hence the application under section 41 of the Act was filed.

(3.) The case of the petitioners was supported by one Ratnakar Sahu who has been described in the petition as representing the deities (opposite parties 1 and 2), but all other opposite parties filed written statements against the contention or the petitioners and supporting the case of opposite party no. 6. The stand of opposite party No. 6 was that his grandfather had established the deities Madan Mohan Jew and Radhaballav Jew long back and endowed some properties in the names of the deities and all those had been done for pious living of his daughter Radhamani who was a child widow. This Radhamani had been recorded as the sole marfatdar of the deities and the properties attached to the deities and after Radhamani in accordance with the intention of the founder he has succeeded to the trusteeship. It was further pleaded that there was a proceeding and being defeated there, the application under section 41 of the Act has been filed.