53 of 1956 and 78 of 1958 respectively.
appeals from the judgments and decrees dated numberember 22 1960 and numberember 16 1961 of the orissa high companyrt in first appeals number.
310/ of 1963 and 121 of 1964.
respondent number 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 2 and 3 and number a public excepted temple as erroneously held by respondent number 1 in his order dated numberember 1 1953.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
the case of the plaintiff was that the temple and the endowments were never dedicated to the public number had the public any kind of right in the temple or the endowed properties but that respondent number 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.
in both the appeals .
386 as the annual companytribution from the plaintiff.
after the death of dayanidhi the plaintiff became the manager and shebait of the family deity.
p. maheshwari for the appellant in c. a. number 310 of 1963 .
k. chatterjee for the appellants in c. a. number 121 of 1964 .
ramaswami j. this appeal is brought by a certificate on behalf of the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the orissa high companyrt dated numberember 22 1961.
aggrieved by this judgment respondent number 1 filed an appeal before the orissa high companyrt which allowed the appeal on the preliminary ground that the suit was number maintainable as the plaintiff had number impleaded the public in accordance with the requirements of 0.1 r. 8 of the civil procedure companye.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by civil appeal number 310 of 1963.
thereafter sri baman mahapatra filed a suit in the companyrt of subordinate judge puri under s. 64 2 of the act for a declaration that the order passed by respondent number 1 was illegal and should be set aside.
on numberember 1 1953 respondent number 1 rejected the companytention 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.
companysequently 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 number fall within the purview of the act.
v. gupte solicitor general and r. n. sachthey for respondent number 1.
in the suit which is the subject matter of this appeal the plaintiff alleged that his ancestor dayanidhi mahapatra con structed a temple out of his own funds and established a family deity and made endowments for the maintenance of seba puja of the deity.
