# PARMANANDA MAHAPATRA v. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1966] 1 S.C.R. 791
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 310/ G of 1963
- **Bench:** K. SUBBA RAo, K. N. Wanchoo, J. C. Shah, S. M. Sikri, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/parmananda-mahapatra-v-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-endowments-orissa-and-3621
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 Procedure 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 Relisious 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 individual members of th·" public have no locus standi in the matter. [794 BJ

## Text

'
•
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 Procedure 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 Relisious 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 individual 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 resA
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----<:onstructed 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 Religious 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 application 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 hearing the evidence on behalf of
both the parties the Subordinate Judge held that the temple was a
private temple belonging to the family of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and not a public excepted temple as erroneously held
G
by respondent No. I in his order, dated
November
l,
1953.
Aggrieved by this judgment, re•;iondent No. I filed an appeal
before the Orissa High Court which allowed the appeal on the
preliminary ground that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not impleaded the public in accordance with the requirements of 0.1 r. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court
H
took the view that the omission to implead the public in a suit
under s. 64 ( 2) of the Act was fatal and the suit as framed was,
•
•
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. MAHAPATRA v. COMMISSIONER (Ramaswami, J.)
793.
therefore, not maintainable and should be dismissed.
In taking
this view the High Court followed its previous decision in Padma
Charan v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa.(')
The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the
High Court is right in its view that in a suit brought under s. 64(2)
of the Act the public should be impleaded as necessary parties
under 0.1 r. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Section 6( 13) of the Act defines a "temple" as "a place, by
whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious
worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right
by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of
religious worship".
Section 6 ( 5) defines an "excepted temple"
to mean and include "a temple the right of succession to the
office of trustee or the offices of all the trustees (where there are
more trustees than one) whereof has been hereditary, or the succession to the trusteeship whereof has been specially provided for
by the founder".
Section 64 of the Act states :
"64. ( 1) If any dispute arises as to whether an
institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act or
whether a temple is an excepted temple, such dispute
shall be decided by the Commissioner.
(2) Any person affected by a decision under subsection ( 1) may, within one year, institute a suit in the
Court to modify or set aside such decision; but subject
to the result of such suit, the order of the Commissioner
shall be final."
The right of instituting a suit conferred by s. 64<2) on any
person affected by the decision of the Commissioner is a statutory
right and there is nothing in that section which makes it incumbent upon the plaintiff to make the public as party-defendants
to the suit or to take recourse to the procedure prescribed under
0.1 r. 8, Civil Procedure Code. It was conceded by the Solicitoi:-
General on behalf of respondent No. 1 that there is also nothing
in the rules framed under s. 52 of the Act requiring the Commissioner to give public notice and invite objections from the
members of the public interested in the temple in a proceeding
under s. 64(1) of the Act. If the Commissioner is not required
to give public notice or to grant a hearing to members of the
public before making an order under s. 64<1) of the Act, there
(I) l.L.R. 1961 Calcutta 183.
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966] i S.C.IL
is no reason why the person affected by the decision of the ComA
missioner should be compelled to implead members of the public
as party-defendants in a suit brought under s. 64(2) of the Act
In our opinion, the suit brought under s. 64(2) is not a suit of the
nature contemplated by 0. I r. 8 of the Civil Procedure Cod~.
Having regard to the scheme and object of the Act it is manifest
that the Commissioner represents the interest of the public and B
he is the only person who is entitled to take proceedings on behalf
of the religious and charitable trust and individual members of
the public have no locm standi in the matter. Reference may be
made in this connection to s. 54 of the Act which states :
"54. ( I ) The Commissioner or any person having
C
interest and having obtained the consent of the Commissioner may institute a suit in the Court to
obtain
a decree--
(a) to recover possession of property comprised in a
religious endowment;
D
(b) appointing or removing the trustee of a math or
excepted temple or
of
a
specific
endowment
attached to a math or excepted temple;
( c) vesting any property in a trustee;
(d) declaring what proportion of the endowed property or of the interest therein shall be allocated
to any particular object of the endowment;
( e) directing account and enquiries; or
lf) granting such further or other relief as the nature
of the case may require.
(2) Sections 92 and 93 and rule 8 of Order l of
the First Schedule of lhe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
shall have no application to any suit claiming any relief
in respect of the administration or management of a
religious endowment and no suit in respect of such
administration or management shall be instituted,
except as provided by this Act.
( 3) All suits or other legal procffilings by or
against the Commissioner under this Act shall be
instituted by or against him in his name."
The principle underlying the section is based, to some extent,
upon the principle of English law for enforcement of charitable
trusts in the interest of general public.
In English law the Crown
E
F
G
II
•
•
'r I
•,
P. MAHAPATRA v. COMMISSIONER (Ramaswami, J.)
795
A as parens patriae is the constitutional protector of all property,
subject to charitable trusts, such trusts being essentially matters of
public concern-A. G. v. Brown('); and the Attorney General,
who represents the Crown for all legal purposes, is accordingly
the proper person to take proceedings on this behalf and to protect charities-Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury('). Whenever an
action is necessary to enforce the execution of a charitable purpose, to remedy any abuse or misapplication of charitable funds,
B
or to administer a charity, the Attorney General is the proper
plaintiff, whether he is acting alone ex-officio as the officer of the
Crown and as such the protector of charities, or ex relatione, that
c
is to say at the request of a private individual who thinks that the
charity is being or has been abused.
The same principle is, to
some extent, the basis of different legislative enactments in our
country with regard to enforcement of public religious and
charitable trusts.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the High
Court was in error in holding that in the suit brought by the
D
plaintiff under s. 64(2) of the Act the members of the public
were necessary parties and it was incumbent on the plaintiff to
follow the provisions of 0.1 r. 8, Civil Procedure Code and the
view of the High Court on this point should be overruled.
For the reasons expressed we hold that this appeal should be
allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court of Orissa
E
in First Appeal No. 53 of 1956, dated November 22, 1961
should be set aside and the appeal should be remanded to the
High Court for being dealt with and decided in accordance with
law.
Both the parties will bear their own costs up to this stage
F
Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1964.
This appeal is brought by a certificate against the judgment
and decree of the High Court of Orissa, dated November 16, 1961
and the question of law involved in this appeal is identical with
the one involved in Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1963.
For the
reasons given in that case we allow this appeal, set aside the
G judgment and decree of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal
No. 78 of 1958, dated November 16, 1961 and order that the
appeal should go back in remand to the High Court for being
dealt with and determined in accordance with Jaw.
Both the
parties will bear their own costs up to this stage.
Appeals allowed.
(I) (1818) I Swan 265.
(2) (1724) 2 P.W. M 103.