SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Ankura Charana Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Sarat Chandra Majhi and Others – Respondents
R.S.A. No. 393 of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.K. Nayak
For the Respondent: A. Moharana

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 deities as parties in legal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 - Section 19 - Legal validity of gift deed - The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding properties gifted to a school; the 1st appellate court dismissed the claim due to necessary parties not being included - Marfatdar of deities cannot alienate properties without permission from the Endowment Commissioner - The suit properties are held to be village deities' properties and suit dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as established in ruling cited. (Paras 10-26)

(B) Properties owned by deities - The court affirmed that the properties in question belonged to village deities and were improperly alienated by the Marfatdar without requisite permissions, thereby invalidating the plaintiff's claims on legal grounds. (Paras 19-24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed title over land historically owned by deities, arguing illegal transfer to a school by the defendants without necessary permissions. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant; however, the 1st appellate court reversed the decision citing the lack of necessary parties, including the deities. (Paras 4-11)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court held that the assignment of rights to properties belonging to public deities and a school without proper permissions made the transfer void, recognizing the necessity of these parties in the suit as per law. (Paras 8-24)

Issues: Whether the 1st appellate court was justified in dismissing the suit for not arraying necessary parties, including the school and deities, and whether the alienation of property was lawful. (Paras 12-13)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court concluded that properties belonging to deities cannot be transferred without statutory permission, and declared the suit untenable due to the absence of necessary parties, affirming that the suit properties were not alienable by the Marfatdar without Endowment Commissioner consent. (Paras 21-26)

Result: 2nd appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appellant's background and property details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. commencement of suit and trial court's proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. trial court's decision details. (Para 8 , 10)
4. appeal filed against trial court's decision. (Para 9 , 11)
5. substantial questions of law formulated. (Para 12 , 14)
6. appellant's claims during hearings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. analysis of property ownership and deity rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. legal provisions on alienation and necessary parties. (Para 22 , 23)
9. conclusion on necessary parties for adjudication. (Para 24 , 25)
10. final order and dismissal of appeal. (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

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

2. The appellant in this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the leaned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.259 of 2014-I and respondent no.1 before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide R.F.A. No.30 of 2019.

3. The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.259 of 2014-I and the appellant along with respondent nos.2 and 3 before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide R.F.A. No.30 of 2019.

The suit of the plaintiff(appellant in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S. No.259 of 2014-I was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The suit properties are M.S. Khata No.288, Plot No.437 A.1.47 decimals and M.S. Plot No.430 A.0.40 decimals in Mouza-Anandapur under Dhamnagar Tahasil in the district of Bhadrak, which corresponds to C.S. Khata No.469, Plot No.454 A.1.48 decimals and C.S. Plot No.465 Plot No.457 A.0.034 decimals, which corresponds to mutated Khata No.384/230.

As per the case of the plaintiff, the suit properties, i.e., C.S. Khata No.469 Plot No.454 and C.S. Khata No.465 C.S. Plot No.457 were recorded originally in the Sabik Settlement in the name of the deities, i.e., Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije, Anandpur Marfat Mahendra Nath Dutta, S/o-Jagannath Dutta.

The deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije, Anandpur were the family deities of Shri Mahendra Nath Dutta. The Marfatdar of the suit properties, i.e., Mahendra Nath Dutta sold the suit properties to the father of the plaintiff, i.e., Bhikari Charan Sahoo through RSD No.5172 dated 25.08.1967(Ext.5) indicating his status therein as Sebayata of the deities for the maintenance of the temple of the deities and delivered possession thereof to the father of the plaintiff. Accordingly, since the date of above purchase, i.e., since 25.08.1967, the father of the plaintiff possessed the suit properties being the exclusive owner thereof and paid the rents for the same to the Government through valid rent receipts.

As such, the father of the plaintiff, i.e., Bhikari Charan Sahoo was the owner and in possession over the entire suit properties, in which, the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession. The father of the plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole successor. For which, the suit properties left by the father of the plaintiff, devolved upon the plaintiff. Therefore, he(plaintiff) is the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit properties like his father, in which, the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession.

During the Major Settlement Operation, the father of the plaintiff was very old and he(plaintiff) was working at Kolkata for earning livelihood for his family. For which, the plaintiff could not take proper steps during Major Settlement Operation for recording the suit properties in the name of his father. Therefore, the suit properties were erroneously recorded in the name of the deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije, Anandapur Marfatdar Mahendra Nath Dutta son of Jagannath Dutta like the Sabik RoR reflecting the note of forcible possession of the father o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top