Back
1951 Supreme(Ori) 57
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Jagannadhadas, C. J. And Panigrahi, J.
JAGANATH - Appellant
Versus
TIRTHANANDA DAS - Respondent
First Appeal 39 Of 1946
Decided On : NOVEMBER 30, 1951
S.MISRA, S.N.Sen Gupta
A de facto trustee of an endowment can sue for the benefit of the deity and also be sued in his capacity as the representative of the deity.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER XXI, RULE 103 - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY - DECREE OBTAINED BY CREDITOR AGAINST DECEASED MAHANTA - EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHELA OF DECEASED MAHANTA - VALIDITY OF SALE - REPRESENTATION OF DEITY IN SUIT AND EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the sebayat of Deity Lord Jaganath, instituted a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendant, who claimed to have been put in possession of the properties through Court, in pursuance of an execution sale held on 10-3-42. The defendant had obtained a decree against the deceased Mahanta Dhyan Das for loans contracted by the latter for meeting the necessary expenses of the Deity. The plaintiff contended that the decree was collusive, that the money borrowed was not for purposes binding on the deity, and that the Deity was not properly represented in the suit and execution proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the loans contracted by the deceased Mahanta were for purposes binding upon the Math and that the decree obtained by the decree-holder was against the Thakur represented by Mahanta Dhyan Das and against Mahanta Dhyan Das in his personal capacity. The Court also found that there was no fraud or collusion between the decree-holder and the Mahanta and that the execution sale was valid inasmuch as Dharmananda Das, as successor of the deceased Dhyan Das, represented the Deity and was in possession of the properties of the Math on the day when the sale was held.
Issues: 1. Whether the debts contracted by the deceased Mahanta were such as would bind the plaintiff-deity? 2. Whether the deity was adequately represented in the suit filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 40 of 1933.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the loans contracted by the deceased Mahanta were for purposes binding upon the Math and that the decree obtained by the decree-holder was against the Thakur represented by Mahanta Dhyan Das and against Mahanta Dhyan Das in his personal capacity. The Court relied on the evidence adduced in the suit filed against the Mahanta by the defendant, which showed that the defendant-creditor had, after enquiry, been satisfied that the money borrowed was actually required for purposes of the Math. 2. The Court held that the deity was adequately represented in the suit filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 40 of 1933. The Court noted that the description of the defendant in the suit was sufficient to make the Deity a party defendant, and that the plaint prayed that the suit amount may be decreed and realised from the properties which have been endowed to the deity. The Court also referred to the fact that the deceased Mahanta had been described as the sebayat marfatdar of Sri jagnnath Mahaprabhu, in order to emphasise the character in which the said math was being sued, viz., Mahanta Dhyan Das as the sebayat Marfatdar of Sri jagnnath and not as the chela of Mahanta Haribandhu Das in his personal capacity.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the execution sale was valid and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the suit properties.
PANIGRAHI, J.
( 1 ) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffappellant under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that he is the sebayat of Deity Lord Jaganath to whom the suit properties belong and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff Mahanta Ganga Das is a chela of the late Mahanta Dhyan Das, who was the previous Mahanta of Bhaga Akahada Math situated at Pur. Mahanta Dhyan Das died on 20-6-41 and the plaintiff, claiming to have been elected on 13-7-41 by a Punch of Mahantas, to succeed the deceased Dhyan das as Mahanta of the said Math, asserts his title to the properties which admittedly constitute an endowment of the Deity Lord Jaganath. The defendant, mahanta Tirthananda Das, is the Mahanta of Pandu Math situated in Cuttack district and he claims to have been put in possession of the suit properties through Court, in pursuance of an execution sale held on 10-3-42. His case is that the late Mahanta Dhyan Das had contracted loans from him, for meeting the necessary expenses of the Deity, of which the deceased Mahanta was the sebayat, and that he had executed in his favour a registered bond dated 10-7- 20 and a handnote dated 6-7-30. For recovery of the amounts due to him under these bonds the defendant filed a suit in O. S. No. 40 of 1933 in the Court of the Second Munsif, Cut-tack, and obtained a decree for 3399/- and odd. In execution of that decree, the suit properties were put to sale and purchased by the defendant decree-holder. The defendant subsequently took delivery of possession on the 7th and 18th of June 1942. Meanwhile, the plaintiff Ganga Das filed a suit for declaration of his title to, and for recovery of possession of the Math and its properties in original Suit no. 5 of 1942, from one Dharmananda Das who was then in possession of the same as the duly constituted chela of the deceased Mahanta Dhyan Das on the strength of a will said to have been made by the deceased Mahanta on 17-6-41 three days prior to his death. That suit ended in the compromise whereby Dharmananda Das gave up his claim and admitted the plaintiff's right to succeed to the Mahantaship of the bhaga Akhada Math. In execution of the compromise decree, the plaintiff took delivery of the possession of the suit properties through Court on 22-1-43. The defendant having thus been dispossessed filed a petition under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 1944. This petition having been allowed he was restored to possession on 16-9-1944.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, namely, Title Suit No. 40 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendant upon declaration of title.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the decree obtained by the defendant in O. S. No. 40 of 1933 against the deceased Mahanta Dhyan Das was collusive, that the money borrowed by him from the defendant was not for purpose binding on the deity, that the Deity to whom the properties belong was not properly represented either by the deceased in the suit, or by his chela Dharmananda in the subsequent execution proceedings. The court sale in favour of the defendant is, therefore, attacked as having been wrongfully and fraudulently brought about. It is accordingly contended that no title passed to the defendant by reason of the court sale and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the properties from him.
( 4 ) THE defendant has traversed these allegations, and avers that the decree obtained by him in the Original Suit No. 40 of 1933 was against the deity as represented by the deceased Mahanta, and that the subsequent execution proceedings were continued, on the death of Mahanta Dhyan Das, against dharmananda who was then in actual possession of the Math and its properties and who represented the Deity
