A suit challenging the Commissioner's decision under Section 64(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939, declaring an institution to be a "non-excepted temple" must be filed within one year from the date of the order. Failure to file the suit within the prescribed time limit renders the Commissioner's order final.

JUDGMENT :

Narasimham, C.J. - This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for a declaration that Betanda Math, of village Betanda, in Killa Madhupur is an "excepted temple" and that the Plaintiff is the hereditary Mahant of the said Math and the trustee of the Devottar properties attached to the same.

2. The suit was instituted on the 28th February, 1951 when the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1939 (Orissa Act IV of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the Act was in force. That Act VIII of 1954 which came into force on the 5th April 1954, but the present case will be governed by the provisions of Orissa Act IV of 1939. It is also conceded that though the Appellant has styled himself as 'Mahant' and described the institution as a 'math' it is only a temple within the meaning of the Act and that his status as claimed by him was only that of a 'hereditary trustee' of that temple, and that the title 'Mahant' was used merely by way of courtesy.

3. The following facts are admitted. The institution is situated within Killa Madhupur which was formerly an impartible estate in Cuttack district. The institution was originally founded and endowed with considerable properties by one of the previous Rajas of Madhupur. He did not lay down any rule of succession for the trusteeship of the temple. Early in 1946 there was a dispute between the then Mahant of the temple, namely Mahant Jagannath Das on the one hand, and the then Raja of Madhupur on the other, as to whether the temple was an "excepted temple" within the meaning of the Act, and whether Mahant Jagannath Das was the hereditary trustee of the same. The dispute was enquired into by the then Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act, but the parties compromised the dispute and filed a petition of compromise (Ext. D) by which the contesting parties, while admitting that the temple was a public one requested the Endowments Commissioner to record both the Raja of Madhupur and Mahant Jagannath Das and joint trustees. They further prayed that the management of the institution may be placed in the hands of Mahant Jagannath Das who "shall be guided by the advice of the Raja of Madhupur and his successors". In paragraph 3 of the compromise petition their further agreed that succession to the office of Mahant may take place with the sanction of the Raja of Madhupur in pursuance of long established custom. On the basis of this compromise petition, the Endowments Commissioner passed an order on the 25th January 1946 (Ext. 9) by which be declared the institution to be a 'non-excepted temple' and further directed that Mahant Jagannath Das and the then Raja of Madhupur should be recognised as joint trustees of the temple. Neither party challenged this order of the Endowments Commissioner before the Civil Court as permitted by Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act. One year later, on the death of the then Raja of Madhupur on the 10th December 1917, the Endowments Commissioner appointed Madhusudan Khuntia as an associate interim trustee of the institution with the consent of parties, including the then Mahant Sri Jagannath Das. Sri Jagannath Das died on the 12th September 1950 and then the Appellant made an application before the Commissioner on the 4th October 1950 (Ext. J) stating that he was the duly appointed chela of Sri Jagannath Das, that the latter had executed a registered will in his favour, and that as his legal heir and successor he (the Appellant) was entitled to succeed to the Mahantship of the said Math. He requested the Commissioner to the appoint him as managing trustee in succession to the late Mahant Jagannath Das and to put him in possession of the properties of the same. This application was treated as one u/s 16 of the Act and the Endowments Commissioner by his order dated the 14th December 150 (Ext. 11) dismissed that application in view of the previous order, dated the 25th January 1946 holding the