A lease of temple property granted after the Jagannath Temple Act came into force is not invalid for want of sanction under section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act or section 16(2) of the Jagannath Temple Act.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, J. - Plaintiff is in appeal against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nayagarh in a suit for title and possession.

2. The disputed property-2.25 acres of agricultural land forming part of plot no. 401 of Mouza Basudia-belonged to Lord Jagannath of Puri and was recorded as Amritmonohi. Plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in 1960 on payment of salami of Rs. 900/- (vide Ext. 1) and annual rent of Rs. 14.94 (vide rent receipts under Ext. 2 series). Plaintiff maintained that he acquired raiyati status and remained in cultivating possession. Defendant No. 1 without any basis raised false claim of tenancy and the local Revenue Officer entertained that claim under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and held that the plaintiff did not have raiyati status and defendant no. 1 was a tenant under the State. Plaintiff contended that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and the decision was without authority of law. He, therefore, wanted declaration of title and recovery of possession.

3. Three separate written statements were filed. Defendant no. 1 claimed that he was a tenant of the disputed property and was in possession as such. He denied the lease in favour of the plaintiff and maintained that if such a lease had ever been granted it was in contravention of section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Endowments Act'). The second defendant accepted the plaintiff's claim and maintained that defendant no. 1 was not a tenant. Defendants 3 and 4 also supported the claim of the first defendant and maintained that the decision of the Revenue Officer was valid and final.

4. The trial Court found that there was a lease in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had occupancy status in regard to the disputed property. It found that the Revenue Officer had usurped the jurisdiction in entertaining the claim of defendant no. 1 and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, it decreed the claim disallowing compensation.

5. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 being the tenants, the Revenue Officer and the State of Orissa presented one common appeal and on their behalf it was maintained that the lease was invalid for want of sanction under section 19 of t;he Endowments Act as also under section 16(2) of the Jagannath Temple Act. The lease was also compulsorily registrable. The Revenue Officer had decided that defendant no. 1 was a tenant and that decision had become final. The suit was hit under section 67 of the Land Reforms Act.

The plaintiff filed a cross-objection asking for a decree for compensation against defendant no. 1.

The learned Subordinate Judge came to find that in Exts. 1 and 2 series there was no definite indication of the disputed property and, therefore, the plaintiff had failed to co-relate these documents to the property in dispute. He further found that the lease was invalid. He also took the view that section 67 of the Land Reforms Act operated as a bar to the suit and reversed the decree directing dismissal of the suit.

6. In second appeal it is contended that the lower appellate Court clearly went wrong in taking the view that the lease was hit either under the provisions of the Endowments Act or under the Jagannath Temple Act. The Jagannath Temple Act ousts the application of the Endowments Act Clear provision has been made to that effect. The lease in question was of the year 1960. By then the Jagannath Temple Act was long in force. Therefore, section 19 of the Endowments Act could not have been applied for testing the validity of the lease. Admittedly by the time of the lease the Committee under the Jagannath Temple Act had not taken possession of the property. In view of the provision of the Jagannath Temple Act, the prohibition therein against alienation also was not attracted. The lower appellate Court clearly went wrong in coming to the conclusion that the lease was in