Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Ankura Charana Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Sarat Chandra Majhi – Respondent
| 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
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....
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 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....
A Marfatdar cannot alienate properties of deities without statutory permission; absence of necessary parties renders the suit non-maintainable.
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.
The suit for declaration of title on a deity's property is invalid without the deity as a party, and sale deeds executed by the marfatdar without statutory permission are void.
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.
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.
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.
A deity, as a perpetual minor, can maintain a suit for injunction against alleged tenants, asserting ownership and lawful possession despite tenant claims.
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
