Judgement

DAS, J. :-

This is a defendants appeal (defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10) against the reversing judgment of the first additional subordinate Judge, Puri, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a two-storied building within the inner compound wall of the temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, any higher than the height of the said wall, and for restraining the defendants from defacing the said compound wall in any manner and to demolish the recent brick structure constructed over the same.

2. The plaintiffs described themselves as the members of an association or Nijog commonly known as Suar Nijog and filed the suit in a representative character under O. 1, R. 8, C. P. C. The appellants similarly were sued in the representative character representing the Pratihari Nijog under the same provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Raja of Puri is the Superintendent of the temple of Lord Jagannath who, it is alleged, had permitted the defendants to put up the disputed structure, and hence he was arrayed as defendant No. 5. Though notice was duly served on him, he never appeared in this proceeding and was set down ex parte by the trial Court.

3. The temple of Lord Jagannath is a very ancient temple the origin of which is lost in antiquity. The greatness of this institution has been in existence since time beyond memory drawing multitudes of pilgrims from all corners of India. From the very inception of the temple, a large number of Sevaks were engaged to perform the sebapuja of the deities installed therein and these Sevaks formed into thirty-six different associations, locally known as "Nijogs, in accordance with the different kinds of services rendered by them.

These Nijogs are collectively known as Chhatisanijog. The plaintiffs as stated above, are the members of a Nijog or association known as Suar Nijog. Their duty was to prepare Mahaprasad which is offered to the three deities, Lord Jagannath, Balabhadra and Suvadra, installed in the said temple. Similarly, the defendants belonging to another association known as Pratihari Nijog are the Sevaks who were originally engaged to look after the pilgrims, the observance of the Nitis and to maintain law and order inside the temple.

4. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants association or Nijog ever since the establishment of the temple was allotted a site with certain structure at the north eastern corner of the inner compound wall known as Kurma Prachir. The said structure was a small room, the two walls of the inner compound in the north and in the east forming its two side walls. This room was intended for the Pratiharis to take rest while they were on duty, the local name of it being Pratihari Nijog Bada.

Recently, the defendants wanted to construct a two-storied building on that site. Thus, while proceeding to construct a terraced roof over the room allotted to them, the defendants have broken the ornamented conical portions which adorned the top of the inner compound wall with a view to level it up to facilitate the construction of an upper storey over it by erecting further brick walls on the aforesaid two sides of the compound wall. To the said construction the plaintiffs objected on two grounds :

1. that it is an ancient and long-established usage and custom that within the inner enclosure of the temple no seat of the nature of a platform which is known as Pitha, a flat, or a levelled-roof can be constructed at a level higher than the height of the inner compound wall, that is, the Kuram Bedha Prachir and any violation of this ancient and long-established usage will affect the very foundation and sanctity of the institution and is against all Sastric principles as enunciated in Silpa Kaumudi and other authoritative works on the construction of the temples.

2. That from time immemorial the ancient kings of Orissa, who established and were in charge of the management of this temple, have refused similar requests by