JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Both the appeals, since arise out of a common judgment of learned lower appellate court, stand disposed of together.

2. The appeals under Section 44 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OHRE Act’) are at the behest of the appellants challenging the impugned judgment promulgated in F.A. No.6 of 2016 and F.A. No.11 of 2017 by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, whereby, the decision of the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Sambalpur in O.A. Case No.4 of 2008 under Section 41 of the OHRE Act was set aside on the grounds inter alia that the same is untenable in law and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

3. The appellants instituted the proceeding in O.A. Case No.4 of 2008 before the court of learned Additional Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Sambalpur for a declaration them to be the hereditary trustees of the deity, namely, Sri Samaleswari Devi Bije which was contested by the respondent Inspector of Endowments only, wherein, issues were framed and on receiving evidence, it was held that the appellants are in management of the deity instead of the Interim Trust Board and accordingly, declared them to be the hereditary trustees-cum-sebayats. The said decision was challenged before the learned Lower Appellate Court in two sets of appeals. It was challenged on the ground that the appellants had never been the hereditary sebayats, rather, performed Jhankari service and on account of abolition of such system, on and from the date of vesting are entitled to perform seva puja and to be in possession of the property to the extent of 50% so long performing such service. In other words, the learned Lower Appellate Court declined to declare the appellants as the hereditary trustees of the deity which is in contrast to the findings in O.A. Case No.4 of 2008, wherein, the management and seva puja performed by the appellants was held to be without any interruption with no interest shown by the Interim Trust Board constituted.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court fell into serious error in dismissing the claim of the appellants as the hereditary trustees of the deity which is against the weight of evidence, facts and law. It has been contended that the appellants are the sebayats, who are offering seva puja of the deity and are looking after the management and affairs of the deity for quit long considering which they were declared as hereditary trustees by the learned Trial court but without properly appreciating evidence on record, Mr. Mishra lastly submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court committed illegality in not concurring the view.

6. On the contrary, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents would submit that the decision of learned Lower Appellate Court is perfectly justified and in accordance with law and rightly appellants have not been declared as the hereditary trustees which was conferred upon them by order of the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Sambalpur without considering the objection of the Endowment Authority and appreciating the matter in its proper perspective. It is contended that the appellants claimed their ancestral right for being appointed by Gountia for seva puja and management of the deity and to perform Jhankari service which stood abolished with the commencement of Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, hence, therefore, the learned Lower Appellate Court rightly held them only performing seva puja