The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Civil Court's jurisdiction in deciding the status of a deity and the rights of the trustees, as provided under the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The Appellants, by filing this Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree dated 17.08.1987 and 01.09.1987 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemunid (as then it was) in Title Appeal No.01 of 1985.

These Appellants were the Defendants in T.S. No.15 of 1978 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Parlakhemundi (as then it was). The Respondents, as the Plaintiffs, claiming to be the hereditary trustees of the Deity, Sri Gramadebati Thakurani Bije at village-Budura, PS-Kasinagar in the district of Ganjam, had filed the Suit seeking the relief of a declaration that the Deity is and has been the owner-rayat of the suit lands at all relevant times and now entitled to possession of the suit land which is under attachment in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Suit having been dismissed, those unsuccessful Plaintiffs have filed the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The First Appellate court has allowed the Appeal and accordingly the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have been set aside.

It is pertinent to state here that the Respondent No.1 who had been arraigned as Defendant No.1 in the Trial Court having died during pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives have come to be substituted and some other parties having also died during the currency of the litigation uptil now, their names have been so expunged.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. The Plaintiffs' case is that the Deity Sri Gramadebati Thakurani Bije at Village-Budura, PS-Kasinagar in the district of Ganjam is the private Deity and they are the hereditary trustees. According to them, about a century ago, their ancestors had installed the Deity endowing some lands, houses and other properties as better described in the schedule of the plaint in favour of the Deity. It is stated that seven members of the family as the hereditary trustees were exercising the rights of management of the Deity. They used to remain in cultivating possession of the land owned by the Deity while looking after the seva- puja and performance of all other rituals and special functions. It is also stated that the Deity has acquired the rayati status in respect of the suit land and land revenue for those lands is being paid to the State for those land regularly.

The allegation against the Defendant No.1, namely, Laxman Mohapatra, stands on the score that he being the Archak had been removed from his service as it was found that he misappropriated the funds of Deity and attempting to interfere with the possession of the suit land by the Deity through its trustees.

4. The Defendants, in their written statement, while traversing the plaint averments have averred that the Plaintiffs are styling themselves as the hereditary trustees of the Deity, which is not a fact. It is also said that they have not been appointed as the trustees by any Authority or the villagers. The Defendant claiming their status as hereditary Archakas of the Deity state that such duty attached to the Deity was being exercised by their ancestors since long. The Defendants have also disputed the claim of the Plaintiff that their ancestors had installed the Deity endowing the suit property which were being managed by them. It is their case that they are in khas possession of the suit land and it is in lieu of the service that they are rendering to the Deity.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court in all has framed 18 issues. Taking up Issue Nos.1, 4, 13, 14 and 18 together as those are interlinked, the court below has first of all held that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit for the reliefs claimed. Further saying that the jurisdiction for the main relief claimed in the Suit remains with the Statutory A