Sebayati rights are heritable but not transferable; any attempt to transfer them is void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.

2. The appellants of this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 and they were the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995.

The respondents of this 2^nd Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 and they were the appellants and respondent No.3 before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995.

The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.350 of 1991 against the defendants was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and in alternative recovery of possession.

The plaintiff No.1 (Radhamohan Deb) is a deity and the plaintiff No.1-deity has been represented through plaintiff No.2.

3. As per the plaintiff’s case the plaintiff No.1-deity (Radhamohan Deb) is a private deity of Prusti Family i.e. the family of the plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 & 4. The suit properties are the properties of the Deity (plaintiff No.1).

The defendant No.1 along with others were the Sebayats as well as Marfatdars of the plaintiff No.1-Deity. In lieu of their Seva Puja of the plaintiff No.1 deity, the defendant No.1 along with other Sebayats and Marfatdars were enjoying the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1) including the suit properties. The defendant No.4 is the wife of the defendant No.1.The plaintiff No.2 is the adopted son of defendant Nos.1 and 4.

On dated 21.09.1990, the other co-Sebayats and Marfatdars of the plaintiff No.1 deity executed a Seva Samarpan Patra in favour of the defendant No.1 entrusting him (defendant No.1) to perform the Seva Puja of the deity on special occasions such as, Janmastami, Radhastami & Dola Purnima and to manage and enjoy the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1). Accordingly, the defendant No.l was enjoying the properties of the deity (plaintiff No.1) including the suit properties and in lieu of such enjoyment, he (defendant No.1) was performing the Seva Puja as well as above annual festivals/rituals of the deity. There are some houses over the properties of the deity i.e. over the suit properties and some houses thereof have been let out and out of the collected rents from the said houses, the expenditures of the Seva Puja of the plaintiff No.1 deity were managing. When, some dissention arose in the family between defendant No.1, his wife (defendant No.4) and their adopted son (plaintiff No.2), for which, the plaintiff No.2 stayed outside from the house of the defendant Nos.1 & 4 in the same village in a rented house with his wife and children. For which, the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the plaintiff No.2 by filing a case and the said case was allowed and the plaintiff No.2 was directed by the court to pay monthly maintenance to the defendant Nos.1 & 4 as their adopted son. The defendant No.3 being one of the co- Marfatdar of the plaintiff No.1-deity, he (defendant No.3) was looking after the maintenance case of the defendant Nos.1 & 4 against the plaintiff No.2 on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 4. Therefore, there was closeness between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. So, the defendant No.1 executed and registered a Seva Samarpan Patra on dated 03.04.1991 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.3 entrusting all acts, duties and obligations of the defendant No.1 for the plaintiff No.1-Deity to the defendant No.3 throu