Case: Parmananda Mahapatra Vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments,Orissa And Othe

2. In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the plaintiff alleged that his ancestor - Dayanidhi Mahapatra - constructed a temple out of his own funds and established a family deity and made endowments for the maintenance of Seba-Puja of the deity. After the death of Dayanidhi the plaintiff became the Manager and Shebait 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. 1, 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 (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. On November 1, 1953, respondent No. 1 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 plaintiffs 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 a declaration that the order passed by respondent No. 1 was illegal and should be set aside. Respondent No. 1 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 No. 2 and 3 and not a public excepted temple as erroneously held by respondent No. 1 in his order, dated November 1, 1953. Aggrieved by this judgment respondent No. 1 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 O. 1, R. 8 of the C. P. C. The High Court 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, therefore, not maintainable and should be dismissed. In taking this view the High Court followed its previous decision in Padma Charan v. Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments. Orissa ILR (1961) Cut 183.

Reasoning:
Whenever an action is necessary to enforce the execution of a charitable purpose, to remedy any abuse or misapplication of charitable funds, or to administer a charity, the Attorney-General is the proper plaintiff, whether he is acting alone ex officio as the officer of he Crown and as such the protector of charities, or ex relatione, that 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 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 O. 1, R. 8, C. P. C. and the view of the High Court on this point should be overruledThis 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 reasons given in that case we allow this appeal, set aside the 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 law. Both the parties will bear their own costs up to this stage.