The court established that a sale deed transferring property of a deity without proper authorization is invalid, making recovery suits unmaintainable if the deity is not a party.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.06 of 1988 and appellants before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.14 of 1990.

The predecessor of the respondents in this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Khogeswar Patra was sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.06 of 1988 and respondent before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.14 of 1990.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (Khogeswar Patra) vide T.S. No.06 of 1988 before the trial court against the defendants was a suit for recovery of possession. The suit properties are Khata No.61, Plot No.752 A0.035 decimals in Mouza Nuagaon under Baliguda Tahasil in the district of Phulbani.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court as per his pleadings against the defendants was that, the suit properties were originally the properties of the plaintiff, but, he (plaintiff) donated the same to the deity Shri Shri Rameswar Mahaprabhu Bije, Nuagaon. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff became the President of the temple committee of the deity Shri Shri Rameswar Mahaprabhu. As per the decision of the temple committee, some properties of the deity including the suit properties were leased out to different persons including the plaintiff for the purpose of running their shops/businesses thereon in order to earn some income for the deity from the same. The suit properties were leased out to the plaintiff by the temple committee of Shri Shri Rameswar Mahaprabhu. Some years thereafter, the temple committee decided to sell the suit properties to the respective lessees in order to keep the sold money thereof in the account of the deity for the smooth management of the temple. As per the decision of the temple committee, the suit properties were sold to the plaintiff through Registered Sale Deed No.131 of 1986. Then, the defendants approached the plaintiff to let out the suit properties in their favour with a condition to vacate the same as and when they will be asked to vacate. After accepting the request of the defendants, the plaintiff let out the suit properties to the defendants and the defendants constructed two shades on the same and each defendants paid Rs.30/- per month to the plaintiff towards rent. As such, they(defendants) continued the payment of rent till the middle part of 1986. Accordingly, the plaintiff was getting Rs.60/- in total per month from the defendants towards rent of the suit properties. So, the occupation of the defendants over the suit properties was permissive under the plaintiff. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff applied for mutation of the suit properties to his name by filing Mutation Case No.502 of 1986. In that mutation case, public notices were issued. The defendants contested the said mutation case of the plaintiff by filing their objection for rejection of the same stating that, they (defendants) are in long possession of the same, but, the plaintiff has no interest therein. After adjudicating that mutation case, the Tahasildar rejected to the prayer of mutation of the plaintiff as per its final order dated 28.11.1986 and directed for recording the names of the defendants in the remarks column of the RoR of the suit properties as unauthorized occupiers. Then, on 01.12.1986, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit properties in his favour in order to construct houses thereon, to which, the defendants denied and claimed their right, title, interest and possession over the same. For which, without