JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — The plaintiff is in appeal against the judg¬ment and decree passed by the subordinate Judge, Berhampur, dismissing T. S. No. 20 of 1973.

During the pendency of this appeal, appellant-Madhusudan Panda having died, his legal heirs have been substituted in his place as appellant Nos. 1 (a) to (e).

2. The plaintiff brought the aforesaid suit praying for a decree (i) declaring that the suit property was not the public trust but the personal property of Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami and that even otherwise, the transfer of the said proper¬ty in favour of the plaintiff was for legal necessity and as such binding on defendant Nos. 5 and 6, and defendant No.1 couldnot take action under Sections 19 and 25 of the Orissa Hindu Reli¬gious Endowments Act, 1951; (ii) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff; (iii) granting injunction restraining defendant No. 3; and to grant cost of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 5-Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami having died was represented by his Chela Narayan Das-defendant No. 5 (a).

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows :

In the year 1967, defendant No. 5- Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami, who was the Mahant of Haradakhandi Math, Berhampur, borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,500/- from the plaintiff in order to meet the expenses on litigation which was then pending for deciding defendant No. 5’s succession as the Mahant of Haradakhandi Math as well as to clear certain other debts. To recover the aforesaid loan amount, the plaintiff had filled M.S. No. 14/63 against defendant No. 5-Mahant, who in order to discharge his liabilities and also the liabilities of the Math, conveyed his personal property described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint, by executing a registered deed of sale on 23.7.1967 in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the consideration from him. The aforesaid money suit ended in a compromise and since the time of purchase, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in his own right. Prior to the aforesaid com¬promise, defendant No. 5-Mahant in his personal capacity had insti¬tuted T.S.No. 212 of 1962 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, for ejectment of defendant No. 7 from the suit land. This suit also ended in a compromise under which defendant No. 7 admitted the right, title and interest of defendant No. 5 over the suit land. After the plaintiff purchased the suit property, defendant No. 7 attorned him as the successor landlord. The plaintiff filed O.L.R. Case No. 1108/67 against defendant No. 7 for determination of resumable and non-resumable lands which was decided by the Revenue Officer. In spite of such State of affairs, according to the plaintiff,-the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, defendant No.1, without any enquiry whatsoever whether the suit property belonged to defendant No. 6. Math, passed an order under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the O.H.R.E. Act,) directing the Collector, Ganjam-defendant No. 4 to deliver possession of the suit property to the Math. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a writ petition being O.J.C. No. 710/71 in this Court with a prayer to quash the proceeding initiated by the Commissioner of Endowments but later on withdrew the same as he was advised to file a regular suit. The plaintiff accordingly filed the present suit with the reliefs stated in the foregoing paragraph.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2,i.e., the Commissioner of Endow¬ments and the Secretary to the Commissioner, jointly filed a written statement, and so also defendant Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the Tahasildar, Chhatrapur, and the Collector, Ganjam, respectively. Defendant No. 5(a) and defendant No. 8 filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 7 died before filing the written state¬ment.

On the death of Mahant Maitheli Priya Das Goswami, defendant No. 5, one Naraya