UPENDRA PROSAD PADHI Vs. SRI SRI AKHANDALESWAR MAHADEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants in a suit for recovery of certain. gifts (presents) made by devotees to Sri Sri Akhandaleswar Mahadeb whose endowment is under the management of the committee constituted by the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3,

(2.) The only point that has been discussed in second appeal is that in view of certain provisions of law to be mentioned presently, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring the suit, nor is it maintainable. The sections relied upon are Secs.27(4), 57, 54 and 5(2), Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (4) [iv] of 1939). Admittedly, plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are members of a committee appointed under a secheme framed under Section 92, Civil P.C., by the District Judge of Cuttack. It is argued that non-hereditary trustees as they are, their office by virtue of their previous appointment enures only for one year from the date of the commencement of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Act commenced on 4-11-1939, and, therefore, they cannot be considered to be in office after 4-11-1940, and thus they are not entitled to maintain the present suit which was filed in the mon May, 1941. Secondly, it is argued that they either as trustees or as members of the public having interest in the endowment could not maintain a suit to recover possession of properties as the disputed properties are comprised in a Hindu Religious Endowment without consent of the Commissioner. Even considered as a proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act, it is valid only so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. This last argument was, however, abandoned when it was pointed out to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the continuing scheme Under Section 92 does not amount to a proceeding. If the Secs.27 and 54 stood alone, the appellants should certainly have been entitled to succeed. But Section 57 operates to nullify the effects of the aforesaid sections to a very large extent. Section 57 reads as follows: Where the administration of a religious endowment is governed by any scheme settled Under Section 92, Civil P.C., 1908, such scheme shall, notwithstanding any provisions of this Act which may be inconsistent with the provisions of such scheme, be deemed to be a scheme settled under this Act, and such scheme may be modified or cancelled in the manner provided by this Act.

(3.) If in the scheme framed Under Section 92, Civil P.C. by the District Judge he appointed the members of the committee as life members--as it is admitted that they have been so appointed--their tenure of office cannot come to an end even though it is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 27(4). Therefore, they shall be deemed to have been in office until the scheme is modified or cancelled in the manner provided by this Act.