Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving religious properties when necessary parties, specifically deities, are absent; such matters should be resolved under the relevant endowment act.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

Since both these Second Appeals have been preferred against an analogous confirming judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in two Appeals vide T.A. Nos.34 & 35 of 1985, then both these Appeals have taken up together for their final disposal analogously through this common judgment.

2. The Appellant in both the Appeals was the defendant No.2 in the suit vide T.S. No.33 of 1982 and was the Appellant in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.35 of 1985 and Respondent No.4 in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.34 of 1985.

The Respondent No.4 of both the Second Appeals was the defendant No.1 in the suit vide T.S. No.33 of 1982 and was the Appellant in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.34 of 1985 and Respondent No.4 in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.35 of 1985.

The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 of these Second Appeals were the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide T.S. No.33 of 1982 and they were the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both the First Appeals vide T.A. Nos.34 & 35 of 1985 respectively.

3. The suit vide T.S. No.33 of 1982 was a suit for declaration and confirmation of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 to 3 of these Second Appeals) in the suit vide T.S. No.33 of 1982 was that, the suit properties are the pujari service lands of village Bhinjali under Kotpad Tahasil in the district of Koraput. The said suit properties were granted to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as service tenure since the time immemorial by the Maharaja of Jeypore for the performance of daily puja and Bhog festivals etc. of four village deities of village Bhinjali, namely, Thakurani, Mouli, Bhoiravi and Ingalajinimata. The nature of grant of the suit properties itself clearly shows that, the said suit properties were burdened with service and not in lieu of service. There was no element of any personal service to the grantor. The temples of the above four deities are all old public institutions, to which, the entire villagers of Bhinjali have the right of entry and worship. The Jeypore zamindari was abolished on 29.12.1952 by a notification under Section 3 of Orissa Estates Abolition Act. As a consequence of such abolition of zamindari, the entire estates of zamindari including the suit properties vested in the State Government under Section 8 (2) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and the persons including the plaintiffs, those were holding the suit properties for the services of the deities, they held the same under the State Government.

During settlement operation, the suit properties were recorded as Pujari service lands of the above four deities and temples. In the settlement records the names of Rama Pujari, Mahadev Pujari, Mongulu Pujari, Dharmu Majhi, Arjuna Samarath and Budu Soma Majhi were indicated as pujaris of the above four village deities.

Till today, the character of the suit properties are as such i.e. the service lands, but not the rayati lands and the same are not heritable or transferable. So, the pujaris of the above four deities are entitled to possess the suit properties for the seva puja of the deities.

The defendant No.1, who was the pujari of the deity Mouli is a rich and influential person and by exercising his muscle power, he (defendant No.1) trespassed into the suit lands in the year 1967, for which, the plaintiffs discontinued their service/seva puja of the deities. So, the villagers of Bhinjili convened a meeting in their village, in which, th