Orissa High Court
Dibyadham Jogashram vs Mahant Rajagopal Ramanuj Das & Others on 10 March, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
R.S.A. No.372 of 2015
In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908.
***
Dibyadham Jogashram, Chakratirtha Road, Puri (Registered Society No.19028/4, through its Secretary Rabinarayan Mishra (dead) & Others ... Appellants.
-VERSUS-
Mahant Rajagopal Ramanuj Das & Others ... Respondents.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate Assisted by Ms. S. Rout, Advocte.
For the Respondents : Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, Standing Counsel (For the respondent Nos.4 & 5) None (For the respondent Nos.1 to 3) P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 10.03.2026 J UD G M E N T R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 1 of 36 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1 and 3 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and respondent Nos.1 and 4 before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010.
The respondent No.1 in this 2nd Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and the appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010.
The respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.2(a), 2(b), 4 and 5 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and respondent Nos.2,3,5 and 6 before the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010.
3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 in this 2nd Appeal) against the defendants (appellants and respondent R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 2 of 36 Nos.2 to 5 in this 2nd Appeal) vide T.S No.189 of 1999 was a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.
The suit land is Hal Plot No.393 Ac.0.509 Decimals (Kisam-Gharabari), consisting of pucca structures, coconut tress etc. under Hal Khata No.93 in Mouza-Chakratirtha in the District of Puri corresponds to Sabik Plot No.1137, Ac.0.50 Decimals under Sabik Khata No.196 of Sabik Mouza- Balukhanda described in the schedule of the plaint.
4. As per the averments made in the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that, the suit properties belong to Emar Math, Puri, in which, the plaintiff is the Mahanta. He (plaintiff) instituted the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 as Mahanta of Emar Math, Puri.
The defendant No.1 i.e. Dibya Dham Yogashram is a juristic person, which is represented through its Secretary i.e. Rabinarayan Mishra (defendant No.3).
The Emar Math, Puri is the owner of the suit properties described in schedule of the plaint. The father of the Defendant No.2 i.e. Biswanath Mishra was a monthly tenant in the house on the suit properties of Emar Math, Puri. After the death of Biswanath Mishra, his daughter i.e. Kanakalata R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 3 of 36 Devi (defendant No.2) was the tenant in the house on the suit properties like her father Biswanath Mishra and she was paying monthly rent for the same to the plaintiff, but she (defendant No.2) did not pay any rent of the same to the plaintiff after 1987, then, she (defendant No.2) being a trespasser of the suit properties created a fake society i.e. defendant No.1 (Dibyadham Jogashram) on the suit properties.
According to plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to Raghabaji Daya. For which, in the settlement of the year 1927, the suit properties were recorded under Chandanadar status in the name of Raghabaji Daya. The said Raghabaji Daya had constructed a thatched house on the suit properties and subsequently renovated the same in the year, 1930 converting the same to brick built structure building incurring loan from Jagannath Bank Limited, Puri. When, the loan dues of Jagannath Bank Limited, Puri became outstanding against Raghabaji Daya (Owner of the suit properties), he (Raghabaji Daya) sold the suit properties to Emar Math, Puri on being represented through its Mahanta Gadadhar Ramanuja Das executing and registering a sale deed dated 26.07.1930 after receiving consideration amount R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 4 of 36 of Rs.14,500/- and through such consideration amount, he (Raghabaji Daya) cleared his outstanding loan dues of Jagannath Bank Limited, Puri. As such, since the date of above purcahse i.e. since 26.07.1930, the Emar Math through its Mahanta Gadadhar Ramanuja Das has been possessing the suit properties being the exclusive owner thereof. The Emar Math, Puri through its Mahanta Gadadhar Ramanuja Das constructed pucca buildings on the suit properties in between 1930-35 by the funds of endowment. The suit properties were recorded in the name of Emar Math in the office of Puri Municipality.
When as per the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the suit properties vested in the State and as, by the time of vesting of the suit properties, Sushilabali Dasi was the landlord of the suit properties, for which, she (Susilabala Dashi) submitted Ekpadiya before the revenue authorities for the preparation of the tenancy ledger in respect of the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff and accordingly, tenancy ledger of the suit properties was prepared in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid the rent of the suit properties to the R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 5 of 36 Government on the basis of the tenancy ledger in the name of the plaintiff.
After the death of Mahanta Gadadhar Ramanuja Das of Emar Matha, the plaintiff-Rajagopal Ramanuj Das became his successor since 20.06.1987 as Mahanta of Emar Matha Puri being the chella of Mahanta Gadadhar Ramanuja Das. He (plaintiff) came to know that, the defendant No.2 was a monthly tenant in the house on the suit properties of Emar Math, Puri like her father. She (defendant No.2) is not paying rents of the same to the plaintiff after 1987. So, he (plaintiff- Mahanta Rajagopal Ramanuj Das) issued a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, 1882 to the defendant No.2 stating that, her possession in the suit properties without payment of rent is illegal and unauthorized and requested her (defendant No.2) to vacate the suit properties with houses, but in spite of receiving such notice, the defendant No.2 did not vacate the same, for which, he(plaintiff) (Mahanta Rajagopal Ramanuj Das) filed a petition under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 before the Commissioner of Endowment, Orissa praying for eviction of the defendant No.2 from the suit properties. The said petition R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 6 of 36 under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 of the plaintiff was registered as O.A. No.154/1992 before the Orissa Endowment Commissioner.
After initiation of that O.A. No.154/1992 against the defendant No.2, the defendant No.3 filed a petition in that O.A. No.154 of 1992 with some documents and claimed to the suit properties as the properties of the defendant No.1-Dibya Dham Yogashram, Chakratirtha Road, Puri stating that, in the final order passed in Mutation Case No.5/1993, the suit properties have already been recorded in the name of the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Yogashram), though the said order was stayed in Mutation Appeal No.17/1994 by the Sub- Collector, Puri.
After hearing from all the parties including defendant No.1, the Endowment Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar passed final order in O.A. No.154/1992 under Section 25 of the OHRE Act, 1951 on dated 22.04.1997 holding that, the O.A. No.154/1992 is not maintainable assigning reasons that, the O.A. No.154/1992 filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. The Endowment Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain such petition and expressed that, the petitioner could get his redress from the Civil Court. R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 7 of 36 Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 against the defendants praying for declaration of the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties and to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff and to pass a decree for mesne profit at the rate decided by the Court for 3 years prior to the suit as well as during pendency of the suit till delivery of possession and any other relief(s) to which, the plaintiff is entitled for stating about the accrual of causes of actions for filing of the suit on dated 05.05.1992, when the notice to deliver vacant possession was given by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2 and on dated 30.06.1992, when the defendants challenged the title of the plaintiff and on dated 22.04.1997 when the Commissioner Endowment, Bhubaneswar rejected to the petition under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 of the plaintiff expressing that, he has no jurisdiction to decide such petition.
5. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999, the defendants contested the same by filing their written statement jointly and separately. R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 8 of 36
As per the written statement of the defendant No.1- Dibya Dham Yogashram, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint claiming ownership and possession over the suit properties is not correct, to which, the defendant No.1 denied.
According to the defendant No.1, the ex-proprietor of the suit properties of Balukhanda Estate was Ramakrushna Babu alias Bose. The said ex-proprietor Ramakrushna Babu alias Bose died leaving behind his widow wife Susilabala Dasi and after the death of Ramakrushna Babu alias Bose, Susilabala Dasi being his successor became the ex-proprietor of Balukhanda Estate including the suit properties. Therefore, in the Sabik R.o.R in respect of the suit properties, Susilabala Dasi had 8 Anna interest and Nityananda Ghosh had 8 Anna interest. For which, Raghabaji Daya had no right to alienate the suit properties to Emar Math, Puri on dated 26.07.1930. Therefore, the sale deed dated 26.07.1930 executed by Raghabaji Daya in respect of the suit properties in favour of R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 9 of 36 Emar Math, Puri is not a legal and valid sale deed. Susilabala Dasi and Nityananda Ghosh were the members of undivided joint family governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. No document is in favour of Raghabaji Daya about his acquisition of any interest in the suit properties either from Susilabala Dasi or from Nityananda Ghosh (the ex-proprietors of the suit properties). When the present age of the plaintiff is about 48 years, as reflected in his plaint, then, he was not born at the time of the so called possession of the suit properties by Raghabaji Daya as well as at the time of execution of the so- called sale deed dated 26.07.1930 by Raghabaji Daya and construction of building over the suit properties in between 1930-1935. After Sabik R.o.R of the year 1930, next Settlement Operation was started in the year 1960 in respect of Mouza-Balukhanda. In that settlement of the year 1960, one Narayan Behera was representing Emar Math, Puri. As per order dated 13.02.1966 passed by the Settlement Authorities, Narayan Behera was unable to produce any document before the Settlement Authorities showing any interest and possession of Emar Math in the suit properties. So, after making due enquiry, the settlement R.o.R of the suit R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 10 of 36 properties was published by the settlement authorities in the year 1988 reflecting the note of possession of the defendant No.1 (Dibyadham Jogashram, Puri) in the same.
When after publication of the R.o.R of the suit properties reflecting note of possession of the defendant No.1 in the same, the Tahasildar, Puri did not receive the rent from the defendant No.1, for which, the defendant No.1 filed a Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.5/1993 for recording the suit properties exclusively in the name of the defendant No.1 impleading Emar Matha as the Opp. Party in that Mutation Case No.5/1993. One Laxmidhar Mishra on behalf of Emar Matha appeared in that Mutation Case No.5/1993 and after making due enquiry and spot visit, the Tahasildar, Puri passed the final order in that Mutation Case No.5/1993 in favour of the Defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Yogashram) for recording the suit properties in the name of the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Yogashram) exclusively, assigning the reasons that, the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Yogashram) is in continuous physical possession over the suit properties since more than 30 years constructing buildings, planting trees and running educational institutions etc. with the R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 11 of 36 knowledge of all including the Mahanta of Emar Math and its officers. Neither Raghabjee Daya nor Emar Matha or its Mahanta had/has any interest and possession in the same. So, as per the said order, the Tahasildar, Puri stopped the payment of rent of the same by the plaintiff.
The further case of the defendant No.1 was that, in fact, neither Biswanath Mishra nor defendant No.2 were residing in any portion of the suit land as monthly tenant and they had never paid any rent to the plaintiff at any point of time. The Dibya Dham Yogashram (defendant No.1) was established on the suit properties in the year 1947 and since then, till yet, Dibya Dham Yogashram (defendant No.1) had/has been continuing/running in the suit properties with the knowledge of the plaintiff and all other concerned and imparting Yoga Training, Homa-Yajna, daily prayers and spiritual related educations etc. After the order of Mutation passed in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties in Mutation Case No.5/1993, the plaintiff challenged the same preferring a Mutation Appeal vide Mutation Appeal No.17/1994 before the Sub-Collector, Puri, but that Mutation Appeal was dismissed on dated 12.08.1998 and the order R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 12 of 36 passed in Mutation Case No.5/1993 in favour of the defendant No.1 was confirmed, which has already been reached in its finality.
When Dibya Dham Yogashram (defendant No.1) was established on the suit properties in the year 1947, at that time, Sushilabala Dasi and Nityananda Ghosh (the Ex- proprietors of the suit properties) were paying their visits to the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Yogashram) on the suit properties regularly acknowledging the possession of the defendant No.1 over the suit properties as their tenant through their induction. At the time of abolition of Ex- proprietorships as per OEA Act, the said ex-proprietors of the suit properties i.e. Sushilabala Dasi and Nityananda Ghosh submitted Ekpadiya in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.1, for which, Jamabandi in respect of the suit properties was opened in the name of the defendant No.1 on the basis of such Ekpadiya. So, the R.o.R of the suit properties, if any, in the name of Raghabaji Daya is baseless, as Raghabaji Daya was not a tenant in respect of the suit properties under Sushilabala Dasi and Nityananda Ghosh at any point of time. As such, the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 13 of 36 Yogashram) had/has been possessing the suit properties continuously without any interruption since 1947 as the owner of the same, in which, neither Emar Math, Puri nor the plaintiff had/has any right, title, interest and possession. For which, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendant No.1 is liable to be dismissed.
The defendant Nos.2(b) and 3 filed their written statement in the above like manner of the written statement of the defendant No.1 taking the same pleas denying the possession of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit properties stating about the continuous possession of the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Yogashram) in the suit properties since the year 1947 till yet and running of Dibya Dham Yogashram on the same and as such, they (defendant Nos.2b and 3) submitted for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
The defendant No.4 (State) filed its written statement denying the case of the plaintiff taking its specific stands that, due to the abolition of the ex-intermediary Estate, the suit properties were vested in the Government. Neither settlement R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 14 of 36 of rent has been made under the provisions of O.E.A. Act nor the tenancy ledger has been opened in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession in the suit properties.
Defendant No.1-Dibya Dham Yogashram is in continuous possession over the suit properties since the year 1947 and defendant No.1 has constructed number of buildings, prayer halls, temples for spiritual educations, puja halls, religious book library in the main entrance of Dibya Dham Yogashram on the suit properties. The suit properties has already been mutated lawfully in favour of the defendant No.1 in Mutation Case No.5/1993 and the order of that Mutation Case No.5/1993 in favour of the defendant No.1 has already been confirmed in Mutation Appeal No.17/1994. As the defendants were not the tenants of Emar Matha in respect of the suit properties, for which, the Endowment Commissioner rightly dismissed to the O.A. No.154/1992 filed by the Plaintiff. When the defendant No.1-Dibya Dham Yogashram is in continuous possession over the suit properties and the building thereon for more than 30 years R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 15 of 36 and the plaintiff has no interest and possession in the same, for which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 9 numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and the said issues are:
ISSUES
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law?
2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff has got any right, title and interest over the suit properties?
4. Whether the father of the defendant No.2 is a tenant under the plaintiff?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession of the suit properties for more than thirty years?
6. Whether a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act has been served on the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff?
7. Whether the defendant No.1 is to be evicted from the suit properties?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right, title, interest over the suit properties?
9. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?
7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses from his side as P.Ws.1 and 2 (Clerks of Emar Math, Puri) and exhibited documents vide Exts.1 to 7/a.
On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 examined 3 numbers of witnesses R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 16 of 36 on its behalf as D.Ws.1 to 3 including the executive Body Member and Secretary of Defendant No.1 along with a staff of settlement and relied upon the documents vide Exts.A to N.
8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, the learned Trial Court dismissed to the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S No.189 of 1999 on contest as per its Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.2010 and 09.04.2010 respectively assigning the reasons that, "the defendant No.1- Dibya Dham Yogashram is in continuous possession over the suit properties since the year 1947 and the plaintiff was/is not in possession over the same at any point of time. None of the defendants including defendant No.2 were the tenants in respect of the suit properties under the plaintiff at any point of time. The plaintiff has failed to establish its title over the suit properties. For which, the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree for declaration of title as well as the decree for eviction against the defendants including defendant No.1 Dibya Dham Yogashram. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable against the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff had no cause of action for filing the suit. So, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief." R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 17 of 36
9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S No.189 of 1999 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff challenged the same preferring the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010 being the appellant against the defendants arraying them(defendants) as respondents.
After hearing from both sides, the learned First Appellate Court allowed that 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010 of the plaintiff in part and set aside the Judgment & Decree passed in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 by the learned Trial Court as per its Judgment & Decree dated 28.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 respectively assigning the reasons that, "since the plaintiff failed to establish monthly tenancy of the defendant No.2 in the suit properties, then, the question of passing the decree for mesne profit sought for by the plaintiff does not arise.
When there is a sale deed vide Sale Deed No.352 in the year 1930 executed by Raghabajee Daya in respect of the suit properties in favour of Emar Matha and when there is no document to show about the dispossession of Emar Matha from the suit properties, then, in such a situation, the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff cannot be held as barred by limitation. Therefore, the First Appeal filed by the plaintiff is allowed in part. The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties is declared. For which, the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit properties. Therefore, R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 18 of 36 the defendants are directed to give vacant possession of the suit area to the plaintiff within 2 months."
10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid part Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 respectively passed by the learned First Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.50/2010 against the defendants including the defendant Nos.1 & 3, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 (Dibya Dham Jogashram and its Secretary) challenged the same preferring this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the plaintiff arraying the plaintiff as respondent No.1 and also arraying the other defendants as proforma respondents.
11. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e. I. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court is correct in relying upon the Ext.1, the certified copy of the sale deed No.352 dated 25.03.1930, when the original sale deed has not been produced nor the recitals are proved?
II. Whether in absence of any proof of customs, whether the sale of Chandandar right vide Ext.1 can be held to be valid in the eye of law and confer title on the plaintiff's predecessor?
III. When the plaintiff has failed to prove the induction of defendnats as a tenant and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and 1927 record of rights shows that defendant is the recorded owner and in possession of the R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 19 of 36 properties, whether the learned lower appellate court is justified in declaring title in favour of the plaintiff and granting the relief of eviction is sustainable under law?
IV. When the plaintiff has failed to establish the tenancy right under the ex-
intermediary on the basis of the so-called sale deed and their continuance in possession even after vesting of the State, whether the learned lower Appellate Court is justified in declaring title of the plaintiff on the basis of the so-called sale deed?
V. When the defendant No.1 established its possession as a tenant under the ex intermediary since 1947 and continue to possess before and after the vesting and the revenue authorities have accepted rent from the defendants, whether the defendants have said to acquire occupancy raiyat status as per Section 8(1) of the OEA Act?
VI. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and is hit by the provisions of Articles 64/65 read with Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act and without giving any finding on limitation, the learned lower Appellate Court is correct in setting aside the Judgment of learned Trial Court?
12. I have already heard only from the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 3) and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 (defendant Nos.4 and 5), as none appeared from the side of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for participating in the hearing of this 2nd Appeal.
R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 20 of 36
13. As per the Judgments and Decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, when all the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law are inter linked having ample nexus with each other, for which, all the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder:
It is the specific/definite case of the plaintiff (respondent No.1-Mahanta of Emar Matha) that, the suit properties belonged to Emar Matha, Puri. He (plaintiff) filed the suit as the Mahanta of Emar Matha, Puri. He (plaintiff) projecting him as Mahanta of Emar Matha, Puri and he filed the suit praying for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the suit properties and mesne profits against the defendants.
Though, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the suit properties belong to Emar Matha, Puri, but the suit has not been filed by Emar Matha. The Emar Math has not been arrayed as a party in the suit.
There is no prayer in the plaint filed by the plaintiff to declare the title of Emar Math over the suit properties, rather the suit has been filed to declare the title of the plaintiff.R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 21 of 36
The status of Mahanta of a Matha like the plaintiff in the suit/appeal at hand has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Bibudhendra Mishra Vs. Board of Revenue and Others reported in 2012 (1) OLR 738 that, a Mahanta of a Math wherever available is to act as the marfatdar of the Math as well as the deities installed in the said Math. (Para No.8) II. In a case between Babajirao Gambhirsing Vs. Laxmandas Guru Raghunathdas reported in 1904 ILR 28 (Bombay) that, true notion of the Matha is under the following terms:
a math like an idol is, in Hindu Law, a judicial persona capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights through the medium of some human agency.
14. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, though, in the plaint of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is claiming him as the Mahanta of Emar Matha stating specifically in Para No.1 of the plaint that, the suit properties belong to Emar Matha and when the plaintiff-Mahanta has prayed for declaration of his own title over the suit properties without praying for declaration of title of Emar Matha over the suit properties, then, at this juncture, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of the own title of the plaintiff over the suit properties is not maintainable under law. R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 22 of 36
15. It is also the specific/definite case of the plaintiff as per Para Nos.5 to 9 of the plaint that, "the father of the defendant No.2 (Biswanath Mishra) was the tenant in respect of the houses on the suit properties under Emar Matha and the defendant No.2 was also the tenant of the suit properties like her father after the death of her father and the other defendants are in collusion with the defendant No.2, for which, the prayer of the plaintiff for the decree of eviction against the defendants is on the basis of landlord and tenant relationship. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act on dated 15.05.1992 to the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties on the ground of non-payment of arrear rents."
In Para No.14 of the Judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.50/2010, it has been specifically observed/held by the learned First Appellate Court that, "when the plaintiff has failed to establish monthly tenancy in favour of the defendant No.2, then, the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of mesne profit."
16. It is the settled propositions of law that, in a suit for eviction on the basis of landlord-tenant relationship, the existence of landlord tenant relationship must be proved by the plaintiff and without proving landlord-tenant relationship, R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 23 of 36 the decree for eviction cannot be obtained by the plaintiff against the so-called tenant.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property reported in (1998) 7 SCC 184 that, in an eviction suit under the T.P. Act, 1882 existence of landlord-tenant relationship must be proved. Without proving tenancy, decree for eviction cannot be granted.
II. In a case between Sai Nagjee Purushotham & Co.
Limited Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252 that, in a suit for eviction based on tenancy, the plaintiff must establish the relationship of landlord-tenant. Failure to prove tenancy is fatal to the eviction claim.
III. In a case between Kishore Kumar Vs. Smt. Daya reported in 2017 (3) Civ.C.C. 397 (Raj.) that, notice was issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act by the plaintiff to the defendant. Relationship of landlord- tenant not established. The question of terminating tenancy by proper service of notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is of no significance.
Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the plaintiff has sought for eviction against the defendants from the suit properties sending the notices under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, 1982 vide Exts.5 and 6 and when the learned Trial Court R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 24 of 36 as well as learned First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments and Decrees have concurrently held that, the plaintiff has failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit properties and when neither the plaintiff has filed any cross objection nor has challenged such concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court that, the plaintiff has failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the said concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court that, the plaintiff has failed to establish landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in respect of the suit properties has already been reached in its finality. For which, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, the plaintiff is not entitled under law to get the decree for eviction in respect of the suit properties against the defendants.
17. In para No.3 of the plaint of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has admitted that, R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 25 of 36 "Susilabali Dasi was the ex-landlord of the suit properties stating that, the said Susilabali Dasi had filed Edpadiya in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff before the Revenue Authorities at the time of abolition of the estates, for which, the Jamabandi in respect of the suit properties was created in favour of the plaintiff, to which, the defendants have seriously denied in their pleadings taking their stands that, the said Susilabala Dasi and Nityananda Ghosh being the ex- landlords (Ex-proprietors) of the suit properties, they had inducted defendant No.1 as tenant in the suit properties and they had submitted Ekpadiya in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.1 at the time of abolition of the Estates, for which, on the basis of the said Ekpadiya, Jamabandi was created in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties."
When both the parties i.e. plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 are claiming title and possession over the suit properties on the basis of Ekpadiya and Jamabandi and when the plaintiff has filed the suit praying for declaration of his title over the suit properties on the basis of Ekpadiya and Jamabandi in his favour and when the so-called Ekpadiya and Jamabandi in favour of the plaintiff has seriously been disputed/denied by the defendants and when the defendant Nos.2 to 5 including the State (defendant No.4) have R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 26 of 36 corroborated to the claim of ownership and possession of the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Jogashram) over the suit properties in their respective pleadings, then, at this juncture, it was/is the duty and obligation of the plaintiff to prove the so-called Ekpadiya and Jamabandi in his favour said to have been issued/granted by the ex-landlord Susilabala Dasi, but, it is curious enough that, no such Ekpadiya or Jamabandi has ever been filed or proved on behalf of the plaintiff. Rather the final order dated 29.07.1994 passed in Mutation Case No.5/1993 by the Tahasildar, Puri vide Ext.E is going to show that, no Ekpadiya in respect of the suit properties was issued/granted by the Ex-proprietors in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. The State (defendant No.4) has corroborated the same stating in its pleadings that, no Ekpadiya was issued/granted by the Ex-proprietors in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties at the time of abolition of the Estates. For which, the recording of the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff in the Hal R.o.R is baseless due to the absence of Ekpadiya and Jamabandi in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 27 of 36
18. When the plaintiff has based his title on the suit properties through Ekpadiya and Jamabandi and when the plaintiff has not filed or proved the same and when there is no explanation on behalf of the plaintiff about the cause and reason of non-production of the same, then, at this juncture, the claim of title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties is held to be baseless.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Another Vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (dead) through LRs and Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.L.J. Page-48 (SC) that, the plaintiff based its claim on the basis of the Patta issued in his favour and as such, the Patta was the basis of the suit, but any such Patta was not proved on which the suit was based, then, the said suit must fail.
II. In a case between Ram Das Vs. Salim Ahmed & Another reported in 1998 (9) SCC 719 that, in a suit for declaration, plaintiff not entitled to get declaration of title if such title could not be established by him by leading convincing evidence. Weakness in defendant's claim for title to the property cannot establish plaintiff's title. (Para No.4) III. In a case between Raj Kumar Agarwalla & Another reported in 2018 (II) OJR 615 that, ex-intermediary R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 28 of 36 was required to submit Ekapadia in favour of the person in possession.
No Ekapadia has been submitted by the ex- intermediary involving the case land.
Hata Patta since has no statutory force cannot create any right in favour of the persons named therein. IV. In a case between Purusottam Santara Vs. State of Orissa reported in 2019 (I) CLR 128 that, title to Property-Acquisition of Land-Land Originally belonged to ex-intermediary-Land vested in the state under the O.E.A. Act-According to the pleas "S" was the tenant under the state and alienated the suit-land in favour of "K" and "P" by registered sale deed and "K" executed gift deed in respect of his 50% share in favour of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff failed to prove that, ex-intermediary granted amalanama patta is favour "S".-Non- production of Ekpadiya is shrouded in mystery. Held, "S" had no transferable right in the property. Rent receipt does not confer any title nor prove settlement of property. (Para No.8) V. In a case between Magu Sahu Vs. Bhramarbar Behera & Others reported in 44 (1977) CLT 65 that, Ekpadiya said to have been submitted by the Ex- intermediary in favour of Sambhu had not been proved. Non-production of Ekpadiya is shrouded with mystery. Rent receipts do not confer any right, nor prove settlement of property.
VI. In a case between Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 that, the R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 29 of 36 plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not.
19. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the plaintiff has based his title and possession over the suit properties through Ekpadiya and Jamabandi and when the defendant has seriously disputed/denied to the issuance of any Ekpadiya and creation of Jamabandi in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and when the plaintiff has not filed or proved any said so-called Ekpadiya or Jamabandi in his favour and when there is no explanation on behalf of the plaintiff about the cause and reason of non-production (non- filing) of the so-called Ekpadiya and Jamabandi at any stage of the suit and when the defendant Nos.2 to 5 including the State (defendant No.4) are corroborating to the claim of ownership and possession of the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Jogashram) over the suit properties in their respective pleadings, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 30 of 36 held that, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus, which was lying upon him to prove his title and possession over the suit properties through adduction of legally admissible and convincing evidence in support of the claim of his title and possession in respect of the suit properties.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree of declaration of title as well as decree for eviction in respect of the suit properties against any of the defendants including the defendant No.1 (Dibya Dham Jogashram).
20. The plaintiff has specifically stated in Para No.11 of the plaint that, the causes of actions for filing of the suit against the defendants arose on 15.05.1992, 30.06.1992 and 22.04.1997, specifically on dated 30.06.1992, when the defendants in reply to the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, 1882 of the plaintiff claiming title of the defendant No.1 over the suit properties disputing the claim of title of the plaintiff on the same.
It appears from the record that, the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on dated 21.06.1999 praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits.
R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 31 of 36
As such, the principal prayer of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties is for declaration of title and the consequential prayer thereof is recovery of possession & mesne profits.
When the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 of the plaintiff was filed on dated 21.06.1999 stating about the accrual of first cause of action on 15.05.1992 and second cause of action on 30.06.1992 and when the plaintiff filed the suit 7 years after the accrual of the first cause of action and 6 years and 11 months 21 days after the accrual of the aforesaid second cause of action and when limitation for filing the suit for declaration is 3 years as per Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 from the date of accrual of first cause of action, then, at this juncture, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(I) In a case between Rajeev Gupta & Ors. Vs. Prashant Garg & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online (SC) 889 Para No.30 that, Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to signify that a suit to obtain declaration (other than those referred to in Articles 56 and 57) has to be instituted within three years of 'when the right to R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 32 of 36 sue first accrues'. In simpler terms, cause of action to sue means accrual of the right for an actionable claim, it is the moment from which, such right first accrues that the clock of limitation would start ticking. Thus, even though, cause of action for instituting a suit might arise on varied occasions and/or at different times, what is material and assumes relevance for computing the period of limitation under Article 58 is the date, when the right to sue first accrues to the aggrieved suitor. Though dominus litis, a suitor cannot pick and choose a time for approaching court. The period of limitation in terms of Article 58 being 3 (three) years, the prescribed period has to be counted from that date of the right to sue first accruing and the suit, if not instituted within 3 (three) years therefrom, would become barred by time.
(II) In a case between Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2011 (9) SCC 126 that, If a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues.
To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued. (Para No.30) (III) In the cases between (Smt.) Sanjukta Das Vs. Secretary, Education Department, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar & Others reported in 2019 (I) CLR 647 & Chitrasen Majhi & Others Vs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2019 (I) CLR 1107 that, if the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 33 of 36 period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued.
(IV) In a case between Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) reported in 2020 (7) SCC 366 that, if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date, when the right to sue first accrued.
21. Here in this suit/appeal at hand, when the principal relief in the suit of the plaintiff is declaration of title and when the suit for declaration of title was filed by the plaintiff 7 years after the accrual of its first cause of action and when the prescribed period of limitation in a suit for declaration of title as per Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years from the date of accrual of first cause of action, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S No.189 of 1999 was barred by law of limitation. For which, R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 34 of 36 the findings of the learned 1st Appellate Court that, the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation cannot be sustainable under law.
22. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the basis of claim of title of the plaintiff over the suit properties has been failed to be established and when the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought for by him in respect of the suit properties against the defendants, then, at this juncture, the part Judgment & Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.50/2010 reversing the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustainable under law.
Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.50/2010 through this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 and
3).
23. As such, there is merit in the 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 3). The same is to be allowed on merit.
R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 35 of 36
24. In result, this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 & 3) is allowed.
25. The impugned Judgment & Decree dated 28.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 respectively passed in R.F.A. No.50/2010 by the learned First Appellate Court is set aside and the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S No.189 of 1999 is confirmed.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 10 .03. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack, India Date: 12-Mar-2026 18:03:18 R.S.A. No.372 of 2015 Page 36 of 36