A deity can only be properly represented in a suit by the de jure manager or, in certain circumstances, by a de facto manager who is in exclusive possession and exercising fullest control over the right of management of the properties belonging to the institution.

MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a First appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-11-1956, of Sri S. K. Mitra, Subordi-nate Judge of Sambalpur, arising out of a suit for foreclosure on the basis of a mortgage transaction dated 1-3-37 for a principal amount of Rs. 3500/ -. The suit has been filed for Rs. 7000/- by the plaintiff Gopal Jew Mohapravu, represented through Raghunath Pujhari, the Manager of the deity. Defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased father of defendant No. 1 are the executants of the mortgage deed. Defendants 3 to 6 are the sons of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 7 is a purchaser of a portion of the mortgaged property. It may be noted that in the mortgage deed, the mortgagee was named as Gopal Jew Mohapravu through the then manager, Nilamani Das. The plaintiffs suit is on the basis that the mortgage transaction is for the legal necessity of joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 6, and as such binding on the defendants. The main defence is that the present so-called next friend Raghunath Pujhari cannot represent the plaintiff and the suit in that view of the matter is not maintainable. Further defence was that the deity is only a benamidar, while in fact the money was advanced by the Maharaja of Sonepur. Several issues were raised; but the two important issues which are necessary for quotation are issues Nos. 1 and 3.--Issue No. 1-- "can the present next friend represent the plaintiff?" and the issue No. 3--"is the suit maintainable?" The other issues indeed were not seriously pressed. The trial Court gave ft decree in favour of the plaintiff finding that the defendants are estopped, from challenging the present manager Raghunath Pujhari to represent the deity, inasmuch as the mortgage transaction itself was executed by defendants 1 and 2 with their father in favour of the deity who was represented by the then manager, Nilamani Das. Whether a manager can properly represent the deity to bind the deity by a decree eventually passed in a suit was not decided.

( 2 ) MR. U. C. Misra, appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants takes up the point that the suit must fail as the deity has not been properly represented. The admitted position is that the Maharaja of Sonepur is the sebait (de jure) of the plaintiff deity. In the plaint it was asserted in paragraph 9 that the manager Raghunath Pujhari is the duly and authoritatively constituted manager of the plaintiff deity, and as such he is competent to represent the deity. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 it was alleged, "the present so-called next friend cannot represent the plaintiff and the suit in that view of the matter is not maintainable". In the two other written statements -- one filed by defendants 2 to 6 and the other by defendant No. 7 -- it was categorically stated that Raghunath Pujhari is not the manager as alleged and he cannot represent the deity. The evidence as to whether Raghunath Pujhari is the properly constituted manager of the deity appears to be very meagre. The evidence on the plaintiffs side is practically confined to the statement of Raghunath Pujhari (P. W. 2) and the evidence on the defence side is that of defendant No. 1 who is also D. W. 2. Raghunath Pujhari admits that he bad been appointed manager by the Maharaja of Sonepur in the year 1953, and he gets a sum of Rs. 50/- as pay for acting as such from the present Maharaja of Sonepur whose ancestors had founded or established the deity and installed the same in the temple. He also admits that the Maharaja ole Sonepur can dismiss him or remove him from the managership of the deity, as the Maharaja is the appointing authority. The position remains as admitted that it is the Maharaja of Sonepur who is the sebait and de jure manager of the deity. Raghunath Pujhari P. W. 2 also admits that there are rules in the temple of the plaintiff deity which enjoins the duties of different persons who work for the deity; but there are no rules defining the duties of the manage