Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Padma Charan Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Khageswar Patra(dead) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's observations regarding trial court's duties. (Para 12 , 30) |
| 3. arguments regarding maintainability and procedural flaws. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. invalidity of sale deed concerning deity's property. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 28) |
| 5. final conclusion: appeal allowed, suit dismissed. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
The predecessor of the respondents in this 2nd 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 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.14 of 1990.
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
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.
The validity of a gift deed supersedes subsequent sales; individuals representing deities can sue to recover properties, affirming their legal standing to protect such interests.
A suit for declaration of title involving properties owned by deities is not maintainable without necessary parties, specifically the deities and any related institutions, according to the Orissa Hin....
A Marfatdar cannot alienate properties of deities without statutory permission; absence of necessary parties renders the suit non-maintainable.
The suit for title over property belonging to deities is non-maintainable if necessary parties are not joined, and alienation of such property requires statutory permission.
Properties owned by deities cannot be alienated by the Marfatdar without permission under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, rendering related transfers void and necessitating inclusion of dei....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy under Section 25(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 is an efficacious remedy for the trust to recover the proper....
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.
A deity, as a perpetual minor, can maintain a suit for injunction against alleged tenants, asserting ownership and lawful possession despite tenant claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Officer has the right to file a suit for temple properties, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the prop....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
