BRUNDABAN SAMARTHA Vs. SHIBA SAMARTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs have filed this second appeal challenging the dismissal of their suit for a permanent, injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from selling Ghee Dipa or Maha Dipa or any other substitutes in the temple premises of Lord Lingaraj. In the suit, the Executive Officer of Lord Lingaraj Temple, has been arrayed as proforma defendants No. 3, but no relief is claimed against defendant No. 3. Both the Courts below have negatived the claim of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, a compromise petition has been filed which has been signed by plaintiff-appellants and defendant No. 2-respondent No. 2.

(2.) The plaintiffs claim that they are doing 'Samartha Seva' for five days a month after death of their father Banchhanidhi Samartha. It is further claimed that Bula Samartha and Raghu Das were also rendering 'Samartha Seva' in the temple of Lord Lingaraj, but after they died issueless, the Board of Trustees of Lord Lingaraj assigned their duties to Banchhanidhi Samartha who was given the exclusive right to sell Ghee Dipa in the temple premises on payment of Salami of Rs. 120/- per year as per the resolution passed by the Board. It is further claimed that after death of Banchhanidhi Samartha, the plaintiffs are rendering 'Samartha Seva' including the services offered by Bula Samartha and Raghu Das and they have the exclusive right to offer Ghee Dipa. It was further pleaded that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had filed O.S. No. 4/103 of 1972/1970-I which was decided in favour of Banchhanidhi Samartha.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 in their joint written statement deneid about the rights claimed by the plaintiffs. It was claimed by them that the decision in the previous suit was not binding of them as they were not parties. It was claimed that all the four branches of Samartha family perform Mahadip Seva in the temple of Lord Lingaraj and those persons are allowed to sell Ghee Dipa, flowers and other materials in the temple premises. The previous dispute had been resolved in the year 1949.Defendant No. 3 challenged the right of the plaintiffs on the ground that no hereditary right had been conferred on the plaintiffs to sell Ghee Dipa.