SATYAMAHIMA SAMAJ Vs. MAHIMA GOASAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 29-7-93 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 62 of 1977 is assailed by the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 in this application filed under Sections 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said order the learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objections raised by the petitioners and held the suit to be maintainable in civil Court. Shortly put, the objection raised by the petitioners was that the suit is barred under Section 73(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 ("O.H. R.E. Act", for short).

(2.) The relevant facts of the case necessary for determination of the point raised may be stated thus :- Opposite parties 1 to 6 as representatives of the Kaupinahari such of the religious suit known as Alekha Mahima Dharma, otherwise also as Satya Mahima Dharma, filed the suit against the petitioners and opposite parties 9 to 20 seeking the following substantive reliefs : "

(3.) Three sets of written statements have been filed in the suit, by the petitioners who are defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9, by defendant No. 10 and by the intervener-defendants 11 to 20, who were subsequently impleaded in the suit on their application. The defendants-petitioners in their written statement denied the allegations in the plaint; they denied that the plaintiffs represent the Sanyasis of Kaupinadhari sect of Alekha Mahima Dharma, as such they are not entitled to represent the Sanyasis of the said sects. According to the defendants, for propagation of the Mahima Dharma the founder had established an order of Sanyasis, consisting of three classes, viz. 'Para Sanyasis' otherwise known as 'Balkaldharis', 'Apara Sanyasis' otherwise known as 'Kaupindharis' and 'Bairagis' or 'Fakadias' a person who first enters into the order of Sanyasis is placed in the category of Bairagis' or 'Fakadias' and after certain period of apprenticeship he is promoted to the rank of 'Apara Sanyasis' and when he became versed in all the books of Mahima Dharma and its rituals and discipline he is promoted to the rank of Para Sanyasis; that all these three classes of Sanyasis have no separate existence or identity from one another and none of them can, according to the tenets of the Dharma, form a separate Samaj. The defendants asserted that since the establishment of Mahima Gadi, the Balkaldhari Sanyasis remained in exclusive charge and management of the Mahima Gadi, attached temples and premises and articles belonging to Mahima Gadi and the Kaupindharis duly initiated have all along acted as assistants of the Balkaldharis without any right, that Balkaladharis and the society constituted by them were in management of Mahima Gadi and are not answerable to anybody excepting themselves and are not liable to render accounts; that the defendants are not answerable or accountable to the plaintiffs who are strangers to the Mahima Dharma. The defendants further stated there is no previous judgment of any Court of law holding that the plaintiffs had right of worship and had right to perform religious rites in the inner sanctum of Gadi Mandir, Sunya Mandir, Dhuni Mandir and other shrines; there is also no previous judgment declaring that the plaintiffs had right of decree into the premises which is the subject matter of dispute. The defendants challenged maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the O.H.R.E. Act and submitted that Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the case.