ORISSA HIGH COURT
ANKURA CHARANA SAHOO – Appellant
Versus
SARAT CHANDRA MAJHI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.C. BEHERA, J.
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
Jogendra Nath Naskar vrs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Calcutta
Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije Kakatpur and others vrs. State of Orissa and others
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharaia cvrs. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue Bihar
Ch. Subrat Singh (Dead) and others vrs. Manohar Lal and others
ogendra Nath Naskar vrs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Calcutta
Choudury Surat Singh and others vrs. Mohan Lal and others
Shiv Kumar Tiwari(D) by Lrs. vrs. Jagat Narain Rai and others
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.