Aggrieved by this decision, the respondents preferred an appeal to the High Court which accepted the same and dismissed the suit Counsel for the appellants has urged before us suit the suit property did number form part of the Temple that the transaction, evidenced by Sanands Exhibits I II issued by the Raja of Puri as Superintendent of the Temple in exercise of his right of superintendent and management of the Temple amounted to a permanent lease of the suit property and number merely to a licence, and that the appellants had an indefeasible right of storing and selling Mahaprasad in the suit Saraonara.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are on August 7, 1969, one Gopal Suar, since deceased, who was the father and predecessor in interest of the present appellants describing himself as sevak of the temple brought a Suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Puri, being suit No.
as alleged, as also the companystruction of two pucca rooms by the latter and the storage and sale thereon of Mahaprasad by the plaintiffs ancestors, the respondents averred inter alia that the Raja of Puri being merely a Superintendent or a Manager of the Temple it was beyond his companypetence to transfer a portion of the Temple permanently in favour of any individual and the Sanand set up by the plaintiff was as such ineffectual, invalid and inoperative and did number companyfer any right , title or interest on him or his ancestors and was number binding on the Respondents that according to the established custom and usage of.
Gangadhar Suar.,
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 24th June 1974 of the Orissa High Court in Second Appeal No.
2 had, by means of numberice dated July 31, 1969, called upon him to close the shop on pain of daily fine of Rs.
160 of 1969, for permanent injunction restraining, the respondents herein from interfering with his right of storing and selling dry Mahaprasad in the suit premises.
The suit was vigorously companytested by the respondent.
8 of 471 Gobind Das and B. Parthasarthi, for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
491 of 1975.
the Temple.
Mahaprasad companyld number be stored and sold in a saraghara but was to be sold in Anand Bazar the place specifically set apart for the purpose, and that since the plaintiff had been companymitting a breach of discipline and violating the orders of the respondents be storing and selling Mahaprasad in the Saraghara standing on plot No.
11 of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act, has ever since its inception been an institution of unique national importance, in which millions of Hindu devotees from regions far and wide have reposed their faith and belief and have regarded it as the epitome of their tradition and culture.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 24, 1974, of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack reversing the judgment and decree dated September 23, 1970, of the first appellate companyrt which in turn reversed the judgement and decree dated April 10, 1970, of the Trial Court relates to the companytroversy regarding the appellants right to store and sell dry Mahaprasad in the suit premises companysisting of two pucca rooms standing on plot No.
167 in Bihar Bedha outer companypound of the Hoary Holy public temple of Lord Jagannath Ji in Puri here in after referred to as the Temple , which to use the language of the illuminating and instructive preamble of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 Orissa Act No.
Santosh Chatterjee and G.S. Chatterjee, for the Respondent.
