RAMACHANDRA KAR Vs. RAJENDRANARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH those appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 12-11-1951 of Sri k. C. Mahapatra, 1st Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack. They have been heard together and will be covered by this judgment of ours.

(2.) BOTH these appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs under Section 64 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act for a declaration that the deity Sri hanuman Jew situate in the heart of the town of Cuttack is a family deity of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendant. No. 7 and that the temple in which the deity is situate is an excepted temple. Defendants 1 to 5 represent the public and defendant No. 6 is the Endowment commissioner. Second Appeal No. 69/52 has been filed, by the members of the public and Second Appeal No. 108/52 has been filed by the Commissioner oi endowments. It is to be noted here that the plaintiff-respondents filed a petition for amendment of their plaint to delete the prayer for declaration of the temple as being an excepted one. The only question to be determined in these appeals is whether the endowment in question is a private one or a public one. The endowment letches a very small income and the property is nut mure than twelve cents in area. The plaintiffs' case is that the idol Sri Hanuman Jew was the private family deity of one Narayan Das who had installed the same deity in his residence. The said Narayan Das purchased some property in the name of the deity describing himself as the mariatdar of the deity on the basis of a Kabala (Ext. 2)dated 5-1-1892. After the death of Narayan Das his widow Moni Bewa inherited the martatdari right and was performing the Seva puja of the deity. She having failed to carry out the sebapuja ultimately executed a Sebasamarpana Patra (Ext. 3) dated 30-3-1909 in favour of Balakrushna Das, the ancestor of the present plaintiffs. Since then Balakrushna, and after him, the plain-Jiffs' father and the plaintiffs are managing the affairs of the deity and are possessing the small acreage appertaining to the private endowment; and the public have absolutely no interest in the endowment. In the year 1944 the, public intervened and wanted to manage the affairs of the deity, and therefore on an application filed before the Endowment commissioner a case was initiated which was ultimately decided against the present plaintiffs, it being declared by the Endowments Commissioner that Sri hanuman Jew was a public deity and the temple a non-excepted one. So the present suit.

(3.) THE defence, in short, is that it is a very an cient endowment and the deity is being worshipped by the public as a matter of right since time imme morial; that they are offering Bhogarag, performing Kirtan and making contributions to the sebapuja of the deity.