A Marfatdar cannot alienate properties of deities without statutory permission; absence of necessary parties renders the suit non-maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellant in this 2^nd 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 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide R.F.A. No.30 of 2019.

3. The respondents in this 2^nd 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 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide R.F.A. No.30 of 2019.

The suit of the plaintiff(appellant in this 2^nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2^nd 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 of the plaintiff, i.e., Bhikari Charan Sahoo in its remarks column.

The defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 are the members of one family. They(defendant nos.2, 3 and 4) are projecting them as the successors of Mahendra Nath Dutta. The defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 have not resided at any point of time in the suit villag