PARMANANDA MAHAPATRA versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 10-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
PARMANANDA MAHAPATRA 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, 
ORISSA AND OTHERS 
September l 0, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAo, K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI 
AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act (Orissa 2 of 1952), s. 64(2.) 
suit under s. 64(2)-Public if necessary under O.~ r. 8 of Civil Proce-
dure Code. 
The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, the respondent 
herein, acting under s. 49 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 
realised a sum as annual contribution in respect of a temple of which the 
oppellant's father was the manager and shebait. 
The appellant's father 
claimed that his ancestor had constructed the temple out of his own fundJ 
and established a family deity and made. endowments for its maintenance. 
The appellant'• father filed an application under s. 64(1) of the Act for 
a declaration that the temple in question was a private one and did not 
fall within the purview of the Act, which was rejected by the respondent 
the Act and appointed membero of the appellant's family as 
heredity 
who declared the temple as a "public excepted temple" under s. 6(5) of 
~rustees. Thereafter the appellant's father filed a suit under s. 64(2) of 
the Act for a declaration that the order passed by the respondent was 
illegal and should be set aside. 
The Trial Court decreed the suit. The 
appeal of the respondent was allowed by the High Court by accepting 
his preliminary ground that the suit was not maintainable as in the sui~ 
the public were not impleaded in accordance with the requirements of 
0. I r. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In appeal by certificate to tW.. 
Court; 
HELD : A suit brought under s. 64(2) of the Act is not a suit of 
the nature contemplated by 0.1 r. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. 
Having regard to the scheme and object of the Orissa Hindu Re-
lisious Endowment Act it is manifest that the Commissioner representJ 
the interest of the public and he is the only person who is entitled to 
take proceedings on behalf of the religious and charitable trust, and in-
dividual members of th·" public have no locus standi in the matter. [794 BJ 
Case law referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 310/ 
G of 1963 and 121 of 1964. 
Appeals from the judgments and decrees, dated November 
22, 1960 and November 16, 1961 of the Orissa High Court in 
First Appeals Nos. 53 of 1956 and 78 of 1958 respectively . 
B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 310 of 
H 
1963). 
P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellants (in C. A. No. 121 of 
1964). 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] l S.C.R. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-Genera/, and R. N. Sachthey, for res-
A 
pendent No. I. (in both the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1963. 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by a certificate on 
B 
behalf of the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the 
Orissa High Court, dated November 22, 1961. 
In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the 
plaintiff alleged that his ancestor-Dayanidhi Mahapatra----<:on-
structed a temple out of his own funds and established a family 
deity and made endowments for the maintenance of Seba-Puja 
C 
of the deity. 
After the death of Dayanidhi the plaintiff became 
the Manager and She bait of the family deity. 
The case of the 
plaintiff was that the temple and the endowments were never 
dedicated to the public nor had the public any kind of right in 
the temple or the endowed properties, but that respondent No. I, D 
acting under the provisions of s. 49 of the Orissa Hindu Reli-
gious Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Act") 
realised a sum of Rs. 386 as the annual contribution from the 
plaintiff. 
Consequently Sri Baman Mahapatra filed an applica-
tion under s. 64( I) of the Act for a declaration that the temple 
in question was a private one and did not fall within the purview E 
of the Act. 
On November I, 1953 respondent No. I rejected 
the contention of the plaintiff and declared the temple as a "public 
excepted temple" within the meaning of s. 6(5) of the Act and 
appointed members of the plaintiff's family 
as 
the 
hereditary 
trustees. 
Thereafter Sri Baman Mahapatra filed a suit in the 
Court of Subordinate Judge, Puri under s. 64(2) of the Act for F 
a declaration that the order passed by respondent No. 
1 was 
illegal and should be set aside. 
Respondent No. l filed a Written 
Statement in that suit and after hear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.