{"id":45633,"date":"1965-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965"},"modified":"2019-01-31T00:17:24","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T18:47:24","slug":"parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965","title":{"rendered":"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1544, \t\t 1966 SCR (1) 791<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPARMANANDA MAHAPATRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS,ORISSA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/09\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1544\t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 791\n\n\nACT:\nOrissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act (Orissa 2 of 1952),  s.\n64(2) suit under s. 64(2)-Public if necessary under 0.1,  r.\n8 of Civil Procedure Code.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   Commissioner  of\tHindu  Religious   Endowments,\t the\nrespondent  herein, acting under s. 49 of the  Orissa  Hindu\nReligious   Endowments\tAct,  realised\ta  sum\t as   annual\ncontribution in respect of a temple of which the appellant's\nfather was the manager and shebait.  The appellant's  father\nclaimed that his ancestor had constructed the temple out  of\nhis  own  funds\t and established a  family  deity  and\tmade\nendowments  for\t its maintenance.   The\t appellant's  father\nfiled  an  application\tunder  s. 64(1) of  the\t Act  for  a\ndeclaration  that the temple in question was a\tprivate\t one\nand  did not fall within the purview of the Act,  which\t was\nrejected by the respondent the Act and appointed members  of\nthe  appellant's family as heredity who declared the  temple\nas  a  \"public excepted temple\" under s. 6(5)  of  trustees.\nThereafter  the\t appellant's father filed a  suit  under  s.\n64(2) of the Act    for a declaration that the order  passed\nby the respondent was illegal and should be set aside.\t The\nTrial Court decreed the suit.  The appeal of the  respondent\nwas  allowed by the High Court by accepting his\t preliminary\nground\tthat the suit was not maintainable as in  the  suit,\nthe  public  were  not\timpleaded  in  accordance  with\t the\nrequirements  of 0. I r. 8 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure.\nIn appeal by certificate to this Court;\nHELD  :\t A suit brought under s. 64(2) of the Act is  not  a\nsuit  of  the nature contemplated by 0.1 r. 8 of  the  Civil\nProcedure Code.\nHaving\tregard to the scheme and object of the Orissa  Hindu\nReligious Endowment Act it is manifest that the Commissioner\nrepresents  the\t interest of the public and he is  the\tonly\nperson who is entitled to take proceedings on behalf of\t the\nreligious  and charitable trust, and individual\t members  of\nthe public have no locus standi in the matter. [794 B]\nCase law referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 310\/ of 1963
\nand 121 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t from the judgments and decrees, dated November\t 22,
\n1960 and November 16, 1961 of the Orissa High Court in First
\nAppeals Nos. 53 of 1956 and 78 of 1958 respectively.
\nB.   P.\t Maheshwari, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 310  of
\n1963).\n<\/p>\n
P.   K. Chatterjee, for the appellants (in C. A. No. 121  of
\n1964).\n<\/p>\n
792<\/span><\/p>\n
S.   V.\t Gupte, Solicitor-General, and R. N.  Sachthey,\t for
\nrespondent No. 1. (in both the appeals).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t       Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Ramaswami,  J.\tThis appeal is brought by a  certificate  on
\nbehalf\tof the plaintiff against the judgment and decree  of
\nthe Orissa High Court, dated November 22, 1961.
\nIn  the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal\t the
\nplaintiff alleged that his ancestor-Dayanidhi Mahapatra-con-
\nstructed  a  temple out of his own funds and  established  a
\nfamily\tdeity  and made endowments for\tthe  maintenance  of
\nSeba-Puja  of the deity.  After the death of  Dayanidhi\t the
\nplaintiff  became  the\tManager and Shebait  of\t the  family
\ndeity.\t The case of the plaintiff was that the\t temple\t and
\nthe  endowments were never dedicated to the public  nor\t had
\nthe  public any kind of right in the temple or\tthe  endowed
\nproperties,  but  that respondent No. 1,  acting  under\t the
\nprovisions of s. 49 of the Orissa Hindu Religious  Endowment
\nAct (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) realised a sum of
\nRs.  386  as  the annual contribution  from  the  plaintiff.
\nConsequently Sri Baman Mahapatra filed an application  under
\ns.  64(1)  of the Act for a declaration that the  temple  in
\nquestion  was  a  private one and did not  fall\t within\t the
\npurview\t of the Act.  On November 1, 1953 respondent  No.  1
\nrejected  the contention of the plaintiff and  declared\t the
\ntemple as a “‘public excepted temple” within the meaning  of
\ns. 6(5) of the Act and appointed members of the\t plaintiff’s
\nfamily\tas  the hereditary trustees.  Thereafter  Sri  Baman
\nMahapatra  filed a suit in the Court of\t Subordinate  Judge,
\nPuri  under s. 64(2) of the Act for a declaration  that\t the
\norder  passed by respondent No. 1 was illegal and should  be
\nset  aside.  Respondent No. 1 filed a Written  Statement  in
\nthat  suit and after hearing the evidence on behalf of\tboth
\nthe parties the Subordinate Judge held that the temple was a
\nprivate temple belonging to the family of the plaintiff\t and
\ndefendants  2  and  3 and not a public\texcepted  temple  as
\nerroneously  held  by respondent No. 1 in his  order,  dated
\nNovember  1, 1953.  Aggrieved by this  judgment,  respondent
\nNo.  1\tfiled an appeal before the Orissa High\tCourt  which
\nallowed\t the appeal on the preliminary ground that the\tsuit
\nwas not maintainable as the plaintiff had not impleaded\t the
\npublic\tin accordance with the requirements of 0.1 r.  8  of
\nthe Civil Procedure Code.  The High Court took the view that
\nthe omission to implied the public in a suit under S.  64(2)
\nof the Act was fatal and the suit as framed was,
\n 793<\/span>
\ntherefore,  not\t maintainable and should be  dismissed.\t  In
\ntaking\tthis  view  the High  Court  followed  its  previous
\ndecision  in Padma Charan v. Commissioner,  Hindu  Religious
\nEndowments, Orissa.<\/a>(1)
\nThe  question of law involved in this appeal is whether\t the
\nHigh Court is right in its view that in a suit brought under
\ns.  64\t(2)  of the Act the public should  be  impleaded  as
\nnecessary  parties  under 0. 1 r. 8 of the  Civil  Procedure
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
Section 6(13) of the Act defines a “temple” as “a place,  by
\nwhatever  designation  known,  used as\ta  place  of  public
\nreligious  worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit\t of,
\nor used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any  section
\nthereof,  as  a place of religious worship”.   Section\t6(5)
\ndefines\t an “excepted temple” to mean and include “a  temple
\nthe  right  of succession to the office of  trustee  or\t the
\noffices\t of all the trustees (where there are more  trustees
\nthan one) whereof has been hereditary, or the succession  to
\nthe  trusteeship whereof has been specially provided for  by
\nthe founder”.\n<\/p>\n
Section 64 of the Act states
\n\t      “64.  (1) If any dispute arises as to  whether
\n\t      an institution is a math or temple as  defined
\n\t      in this Act or whether a temple is an excepted
\n\t      temple,  such dispute shall be decided by\t the
\n\t      Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Any person affected by a decision  under
\n\t      subsection (1) may, within one year, institute
\n\t      a\t suit  in the Court to modify or  set  aside
\n\t      such  decision; but subject to the  result  of
\n\t      such suit, the order of the Commissioner shall
\n\t      be final.”\n<\/p>\n
The right of instituting a suit conferred by s. 64(2) on any
\nperson\taffected  by the decision of the Commissioner  is  a
\nstatutory  right and there is nothing in that section  which
\nmakes it incumbent upon the plaintiff to make the public  as
\nparty-defendants  to  the suit or to take  recourse  to\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed under 0.1 r. 8, Civil Procedure  Code.
\nIt  was\t conceded  by the Solicitor  General  on  behalf  of
\nrespondent  No.\t 1 that there is also nothing in  the  rules
\nframed under s. 52 of the Act requiring the Commissioner  to
\ngive public notice and invite objections from the members of
\nthe public interested in the temple in a proceeding under s.
\n64(1)  of the Act.  If the Commissioner is not\trequired  to
\ngive  public notice or to grant a hearing to members of\t the
\npublic\tbefore\tmaking an order under s. 64(1) of  the\tAct,
\nthere
\n(1)  I.L.R. 1961 Calcutta 183.\n<\/p>\n
794<\/span><\/p>\n
is no reason why the person affected by the decision of\t the
\nCommissioner  should be compelled to implead members of\t the
\npublic as party-defendants in a suit brought under s.  64(2)
\nof the Act In our opinion, the suit brought under s. 64\t (2)
\nis not a suit of the nature contemplated by 0. I r. 8 of the
\nCivil  Procedure  Code.\t  Having regard to  the\t scheme\t and
\nobject\tof  the\t Act it is manifest  that  the\tCommissioner
\nrepresents  the\t interest of the public and he is  the\tonly
\nperson who is entitled to take proceedings on behalf of\t the
\nreligious and charitable trust and individual members of the
\npublic have no locus standi in the matter.  Reference may be
\nmade in this connection to s. 54 of the Act which states :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “54. (1) The Commissioner or any person having
\n\t      interest\tand having obtained the\t consent  of
\n\t      the  Commissioner may institute a suit in\t the
\n\t      Court to obtain a decree-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   to\t recover  possession   of   property
\n\t      comprised in a religious endowment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   appointing or removing the trustee of  a
\n\t      math  or\texcepted  temple or  of\t a  specific
\n\t      endowment\t attached  to  a  math\tor  excepted
\n\t      temple;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   vesting any property in a trustee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   declaring what proportion of the endowed
\n\t      property\tor of the interest therein shall  be
\n\t      allocated\t to  any particular  object  of\t the
\n\t      endowment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   directing account and enquiries; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (f)   granting such further or other relief as
\n\t      the nature of the case may require.
\n\t      (2)   Sections 92 and 93 and rule 8 of Order 1
\n\t      of  the  First Schedule of the Code  of  Civil
\n\t      Procedure, 1908, shall have no application  to
\n\t      any suit claiming any relief in respect of the
\n\t      administration  or management of\ta  religious
\n\t      endowment\t and  no  suit in  respect  of\tsuch
\n\t      administration   or   management\t shall\t  be
\n\t      instituted, except as provided by this Act.
\n\t      (3)   All suits or other legal proceedings  by
\n\t      or  against  the Commissioner under  this\t Act
\n\t      shall  be instituted by or against him in\t his
\n\t      name.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  principle\tunderlying  the section is  based,  to\tsome
\nextent, upon the principle of English law for enforcement of
\ncharitable  trusts  in the interest of general\tpublic.\t  In
\nEnglish law the Crown
\n 795<\/span>
\nas  parens  patriae is the constitutional protector  of\t all
\nproperty,  subject to charitable trusts, such  trusts  being
\nessentially  matters of public concern-A.  G.  v.  Brown(1);
\nand  the Attorney General, who represents the Crown for\t all
\nlegal  purposes,  is accordingly the proper person  to\ttake
\nproceedings on this behalf and to protect charities-Eyre  v.
\nCountess of Shaftsbury (2). Whenever an action is  necessary
\nto enforce the execution of a charitable purpose, to  remedy
\nany  abuse  or\tmisapplication of charitable  funds,  or  to
\nadminister  a  charity, the Attorney General is\t the  proper
\nplaintiff,  whether  he is acting alone\t ex-officio  as\t the
\nofficer of the Crown and as such the protector of charities,
\nor  ex relation that is to say at the request of  a  private
\nindividual who thinks that the charity is being or has\tbeen
\nabused.\t The same principle is, to some extent, the basis of
\ndifferent legislative enactments in our country with  regard
\nto  enforcement of public religious and\t charitable  trusts.
\nWe  are,  therefore, of opinion that the High Court  was  in
\nerror  in holding that in the suit brought by the  plaintiff
\nunder  S.  64(2) of the Act the members of the\tpublic\twere
\nnecessary  parties and it was incumbent on the plaintiff  to
\nfollow the provisions of 0.1 r. 8, Civil Procedure Code\t and
\nthe  view  of  the  High  Court\t on  this  point  should  be
\noverruled.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons expressed we hold that this appeal should be
\nallowed\t and  the judgment and decree of the High  Court  of
\nOrissa\tin First Appeal No. 53 of 1956, dated  November\t 22,
\n1961  should be set aside and the appeal should be  remanded
\nto  the\t High  Court for being dealt  with  and\t decided  in
\naccordance  with law.  Both the parties will bear their\t own
\ncosts up to this stage
\n\t  Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is brought by a certificate against the judgment
\nand  decree of the High Court of Orissa, dated November\t 16,
\n1961  and  the question of law involved in  this  appeal  is
\nidentical  with the one involved in Civil Appeal No. 310  of
\n1963.\tFor  the reasons given in that case  we\t allow\tthis
\nappeal set aside the judgment and decree of the Orissa\tHigh
\nCourt  in  First Appeal No. 78 of 1958, dated  November\t 16,
\n1961  and order that the appeal should go back in remand  to
\nthe  High  Court  for being dealt  with\t and  determined  in
\naccordance  with law.  Both the parties will bear their\t own
\ncosts up to this stage.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1818) 1 Swan 265.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1724) 2 P.W. M 103.\n<\/p>\n
796<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1544, 1966 SCR (1) 791 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: PARMANANDA MAHAPATRA Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS,ORISSA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/1965 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 10 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 10 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-30T18:47:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T18:47:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\"},\"wordCount\":1674,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\",\"name\":\"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 10 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T18:47:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 10 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 10 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-30T18:47:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965","datePublished":"1965-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T18:47:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965"},"wordCount":1674,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965","name":"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 10 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T18:47:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmananda-mahapatra-vs-commissioner-of-hindu-religious-on-10-september-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parmananda Mahapatra vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious … on 10 September, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45633","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}