The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of compliance with the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, particularly regarding permission for lease of immovable property belonging to a religious institution and the necessity of proving adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Rath, J.

This appeal by the plaintiff assails the affirming judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in Title Appeal No.15 of 1998 in a suit for permanent injunction.

2. An area ad measuring Ac.4.340 dec. of land appertaining to M.S.Khata No.820, Plot No.753 of Mouza- Apartibindha, Tahasil-Bhadrak, Dist-Balasore corresponding to C.S.Khata No.57, plot no.624 is the subject of matter of dispute in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur, Marfat Kanhu Charan Das. It was recorded as Amba-Bagayat in the current settlement of 1928. The other plot has been recorded as Ghara. In the M.S.R.O.R., the same has been recorded as Bebandobasta with a note of possession of the plaintiff. In the year 1944, he requested the then Mahanta to lease out the suit land by means of a permanent lease. To press the legal necessity, the Mahanta granted an unregistered rayati patta in his favour on receipt of salami. He has also acquired right of occupancy over the suit land. He is in possession of the suit land for more than 50 years peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. When they threatened to dispossess him, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

4. The defendants 1, 2 & 4 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur is a public religious endowment and managed by a trust board. The Commissioner of Endowments should have been made as a party. The suit land was not leased out in favour of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not acquired title by way of adverse possession. Plot Nos.624 and 625 under C.S. Khata No.57 are bahel nijdakhal land of Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur, marfat Mahanta Kanhu Charan Das. The estate has been declared as trust estate. The Commissioner of Endowments is managing the affairs of the institution. During the years 1981 to 1983, the plaintiff was permitted to prepare bricks on the vacant portion on payment of certain amount to the deity by way of compensation. The plaintiff paid Rs.2312/- to the deity. The plaintiff filed Objection Case No.18657 of 1978 before the settlement authorities claiming his possession over Ac.4.340 dec. of land. The same was rejected.

5. Defendant no.3, interim trustee, filed a written statement pleading inter alia that the property belongs to Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur. The plaintiff was permitted to prepare bricks over the suit land on payment of compensation during the years 1981-1987. He paid Rs.2,312/- to the deity. The plaintiff has not acquired title by way of adverse possession. The entry in the R.O.R. is wrong. Defendant no.5 was set ex parte.

6. On an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court held that mere recording of plaintiff's forcible possession in Ext.2 of 1983 R.O.R. will not prove adverse possession. The same is illegal. The plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction. It further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit land was leased out. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.15 of 1998 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak. Learned appellate court held that the suit property has been declared Trust Estate as per the notification dated 18.3.1974 issued by the Government of Orissa. Trustee has been appointed to look after the same. Leave of the Court is required for instituting the suit under Section 92 CPC. The Commissioner of Endowments has not been impleaded U/s 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the O.H.R.E. Act"). The suit should not have been admitted for non-compliance of Section 92 CPC and Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act. Held so, it it dismissed the appeal. It is apt to state he