Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Radhamohan Deb, represented through Marfatdar – Appellant
Versus
Radhamohan Deb Bije Bharatipur, Dist.-Puri – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' argument regarding the validity of the seva samarpan patra. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of shebait rights and the legality of the seva samarpan patra. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. confirmation of the trial court's judgment as sustainable under law. (Para 17) |
| 5. final decree and order of the court. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.
2. The appellants of this 2nd 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 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.64 of 1995.
The respondents of this 2nd 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 1st 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
Sebayati rights are heritable but not transferable; any attempt to transfer them is void ab initio.
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.
A Marfatdar cannot alienate properties of deities without statutory permission; absence of necessary parties renders the suit non-maintainable.
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....
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....
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.
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.
Shebaitship rights cannot be transferred in violation of prior legal agreements, and debuttar properties are not subject to partition due to their dedicated nature to deities.
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.
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
