MAHANT BANABEHARI PURI Vs. NAGA ANANDA PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the civil revision arise out of a suit which was instituted by the respondents under the provisions of Section 92, Civil P.C. for a declaration that the defendant, who is the appellant before us, should be removed from the trusteeship of a public endowment known as Lakshmibhadra Math situated in the town of Puri, for appointing some competent persons as trustees so that the endowed properties may vest in them, and for settling a scheme for the due administration of the trust. After the written statement was filed the issues, which were agreed to, were framed at page 21, the important issues being whether the defendant- committed any breach of trust, malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation or illegal alienation of the math properties as alleged, whether the defendant was incompetent to manage the affairs of the math and should be removed from the mahantship, and whether settlement of a scheme by the Court was necessary for the administration of the math. But at page 8 the issues are stated as follows: (1) Restriction of the defendants power of alienation of math properties, (2) Allotments for feeding guests, (3) Arrangement for necessary repairs. It is not understood how the important issues as to whether the defendant had committed any breach of trust, etc., and whether owing to his incompetency to manage the affairs of the math he should be removed from the mahantship were omitted when the issues were signed by the learned District Judge on 18 November 1938. On the other hand, the order of 18 November 1938, says that draft issues filed are accepted. The draft issues, which we have reproduced already from page 21, show that they were draft issues by consent and were signed by the pleaders of both sides.

(2.) On 13 February 1939, an application was put in by both the parties in which they prayed that the case be referred to arbitration to decide the dispute by settling a scheme for smooth and better management of the math by the defendant. That application is to be found at page 22 and contains names of the arbitrators as Rai Bahadur Lokenath Misra, Advocate, Puri, and Babu Harihar Das, Advocate, Puri. The former gentleman was appearing for the plaintiff in the case and Babu Harihar Das is married to the first cousin of Rai Bahadur Lokenath Misra. Upon receiving this petition, the Court ordered that the application is allowed and the order of reference should be issued at once and that the award should be submitted positively by 14 February 1939. It will be noticed that the Court did not make any provision for a difference of opinion between the arbitrators such as he was required to do by para. 4 of Schedule 2, Civil P.C. But this was a more irregularity and as the arbitrators agreed in the award the question is not material for further consideration. On 14 February 1939, the arbitrators filed an award which is at page 23.

(3.) In that they decided that the mahant shall not transfer or encumber the math properties without previously obtaining the sanction of the committee consisting of Rai Bahadur Lokenath Misra, Babu Chandrasekhar Misra and Babu Harihar Das, Advocate, after looking into the accounts of the math and that Rs. 400 will be set apart every year for the repairs of the math building. Then provision is made for feeding each guest without fixing the number and in particular that plaintiff 1 will remain in charge of the feeding of the guests and will get its. 15 per mensem as his maintenance and also will get two free meals every day. The defendant immediately filed an objection to the award in which he very strongly objected to the appointment of the committee and its personnel, in particular of Babu Chandrasekhar Misra. He also asserted that Rai Bahadur Lokenath Misra is an enemy of the defendant and bears ill-will towards him. It was also objected that the award was imperfect as it did not settle a scheme for the administration of the math nor did it indicate how the existing debts are to be discharged and that it was vague in so far as it did not fix the number of guests who are to be fed daily. Objection is also taken to the fixing of maintenance for plaintiff 1 who it was asserted, was a leper and should not have been left in charge of feeding the guests.