Alienation of property belonging to a deity requires prior permission under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951; failure to include the deity as a party renders the suit non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellant of this 2^nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1994 and she was the respondent before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A.No.5 of 1996.

The respondents of this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1994 and they were the appellants before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A.No.5 of 1996.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (appellant in this 2^nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.20 of 1994 against the defendants (respondents in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration of title.

4. The suit properties are Hal Plot No.418/509 under Hal Khata No.12 in Mouza Bada-Dangua under Khunta Police Station in the District of Mayurbhanj described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint.

As per plaintiff’s case, the suit properties were the properties of the deity Gadanaikani Thakurani of village Bada-Dangua. One Hadibandhu Dehury was the marfatdar of the said deity Gadanaikani Thakurani of village Bada-Dangua.

As per the notification No.11680 dated 23.02.1965, the suit properties belonging to Gadanaikani Thakurani was treated as rayati and Hasilat land by the successor of Hadibandhu Dehury i.e. Sanatan Dehury. Sanatan Dehury was the only son of Hadibandhu Dehury. The defendants are the successors of Sanatan Dehury. Sanatan Dehury sold the suit properties to the plaintiff by executing and registering sale deed No.547 dated 26.02.1983 and delivered possession thereof and after purchasing the suit properties from Sanatan Dehury, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the same and possessed the suit properties since the date of her purchase. But, in the Hal settlement, the R.o.R. of the suit properties was erroneously published in the name of the deity Gadanaikani Thakurani Bije Nijagaon, Bada-Dangua indicating the names of the defendants as the marfatdars of the deity and noting the possession of the plaintiff in the remarks column of suit Hal Plot No.418/509 as an illegal purchaser thereof.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Mutation Case No.117/94 before the Tahasildar, Udala to record her name in respect of the suit properties, to which, the defendants objected stating that, they are not at all aware about the execution of any sale deed by their predecessor Sanatan Dehury in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. That sale deed in question is not genuine and lawful sale deed.

After hearing from both the sides, the Tahasildar, Udala allowed the mutation case filed by the plaintiff and passed an order for recording the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff. But, when in the mutation case, defendants questioned the genuineness of the sale deed as well as the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties, then she (plaintiff) approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1994 being the sole plaintiff against the defendants praying for declaration of her right and title over the suit properties by virtue of the sale deed in her favour vide R.S.D. No.547 dated 26.02.1983 along with other relief(s), to which, she is entitled for.

5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1994 filed by the plaintiff, the defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint taking their stands specifically therein that, they (defendants) are very simple, innocent, illiterate and poor persons. Sanatan Dehury, the so called vendor of the sale deed in que