JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This appeal is by Defendants 1 to 4 Against the reversing judgment of the, Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack allowing the suit of the Plaintiff for a declaration that a lease of the plaint schedule property granted by Defendants 5 to 9 in favour of Defendants 1 to 4 is null and void and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The admitted facts are as follows: The Plaintiff is an ancient deity established at Chatrapatna in Kendrapara town who owns considerable property; its annual income being Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/-. The properly was mainly either of a proprietary nature or of that of a tenure-holder. The disputed Khata No. 239 with an area of 5.99 acres was recorded as the Sthitiban holding of one Udia Bewa and the Plaintiff deity was the superior landlord of that holding. The recorded tenant hold the property to several persons including Plaintiff No. 2 by two Kablas dated 21-1-18 and 30-10-20. For arrears of rent the Khata was brought to sale in R.S. No. 5000 of 1936-37 by the deity, a decree was obtained in due course and the entire holding was purchased by the deity on 18-12-36. Delivery of possession was also obtained and the Khata thus became the nij dakhli land of the deity. On 19-7-39 Defendants 5 to 9 while purporting to act as Sebait Marfatdars of the deity granted a permanent lease (Ext. C) in favour of Defendants 1 to 4 of the said Khata after taking a Salami of Rs. 600/- and settled the khata with them at an annual rental of Rs. 20-5-0. In the lease deed it was further stipulated that the lessees would acquire occupancy rights and hold the property in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The Salami of Rs. 600/- was received by Defendants 5 to 9 as Sebait Marfatdars and it was admitted by the Plaintiffs only witness (P.W. 1) that the entire sum was spent for the purposes of the deity. Subsequently, the endowment came under the control of the Commissioner of Eadowments, Orissa who prepared a scheme for its management, removed the old Marfatdars and appointed new Marfatdars (Plaintiffs 2 to 5) (see Exts. 3 and 5-a). The present suit wag brought by the Dew Marfatdars on behalf of the deity for a declaration that the permanent lease deed (Ext. Subsequently, the endowment came under the control of the Commissioner of Eadowments, Orissa who prepared a scheme for its management, removed the old Marfatdars and appointed new Marfatdars (Plaintiffs 2 to 5) (see Exts. 3 and 5-a). The present suit wag brought by the Dew Marfatdars on behalf of the deity for a declaration that the permanent lease deed (Ext. C) executed by the previous Marfatdars (Defendants 5 to 9) was not for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the endowment and as such was invalid. 3. The main defence of the contesting Defendants was that the permanent lease was executed for legal necessity and that the Salami amount of Rs. 600/- was utilised for meeting the daily expenses of the deity and also for purchasing court fees to fight out soma litigation and for repair of the Mandap of the deity. But they also put forward an alternative defence to the effect that as settled raiyats of the village they acquired occupancy rights over the disputed property by virtue of the lease executed in their favour by the Sebait Marfatdars. The trial Court decided both these points in their favour. But the lower appellate Court held that the legal necessity as put forward by the contesting Defendants was not so pressing or urgent as to justify the grant of a permanent lease. It, therefore, held that it would not amount to legal necessity as contemplated by law. On the question of acquisition of occupancy rights by the contesting Defendants, the lower appellate court held that as the lease itself was not for legal necessity and was consequently invalid the Defendants were not inducted on the land as raiyats so as to claim occupancy status. Hence, it dismissed the suit. 4. Mr. Mohanty on behalf of the Appellants first contended that the contesting Defendants have clearly acquired occupancy rights on the land by virtue of a valid settlement made with them by the then Sebait Marfatdars of the deity and that consequently it was unnecessary to consider whether the lease was executed for legal necessity. 5. I think the case can be disposed of on this question alone and it is therefore unnecessary to examine whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial Court's finding as regards legal necessity for the lease. 5. I think the case can be disposed of on this question alone and it is therefore unnecessary to examine whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial Court's finding as regards legal necessity for the lease. The answer to this question obviously depends on whether the Sabait Marfatdars of the deity are entitled in course of their prudent management of the deity's property to make a raiyati settlement of the disputed property in favour of Defendants 1 to 4. Admittedly, the Plaintiff-deity owns extensive properties which are partly 'estates' and partly 'tenures' as defined in the Orissa Tenancy Act. The disputed property was formerly the occupancy holding of some other tenants who lost their title by failure to pay the arrear rental. Prima facie, the manager of the zamindari interest of a public endowment is entitled in the course of his prudent management of the estate to settle nij dakhli lands with raiyats on payment of fair Salami at a fair rate of rental. It is not suggested that the rate of rent is abnormally low. On the other hand it is of the same rate as was paid by the previous tenant. In addition, the Salami of Rs. 600/- has not been shown to be unduly low and it is also admitted that it was utilised for the purposes of the deity. Hence, the bona fide nature of the settlement made by the previous Marfatdars with Defendants 1 to 4 is beyond question. 6. Mr. Mohanty however urged that, in essence, the impound lease (Ext. C) was a permanent lease at a fixed rental, executed by the Sebait Marfatdars and such a lease has been held to be invalid in several decisions of the various High Courts and of the Privy Council. There is no doubt that as a broad proposition of law a Sebait Marfatdar like any other limited owner such as a Mahant of a math has no right to alienate the temple property by executing a permanent lease at a fixed rent. But ever sine the decision of the Privy Council in 1869 reported in Maharani Shibesouri Debi v. Mathuranath 13 M.I.A. 270 it has always been recognised that a Sebait could validly create derivative tenures and estates while acting in bona fide management of the estates of the deity. But ever sine the decision of the Privy Council in 1869 reported in Maharani Shibesouri Debi v. Mathuranath 13 M.I.A. 270 it has always been recognised that a Sebait could validly create derivative tenures and estates while acting in bona fide management of the estates of the deity. This view has been followed in several succeeding decisions and I need only refer to Nallayappa v. Ambalakana Pandaru Sannadhi ILR Mad. 466. It is part of the normal functions of either a proprietor or a tenure-holder to induct raiyats on his lands by making valid settlements with them. This will be clear from the definition of the expressions 'tenure-holder' and 'raiyat' as given in Section 5(1) and (2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. Hence, when the previous Sebait Marfatdars, in bona fide exercise of their right of management of the deity's property, resettled the is putted khats which was formerly a raiyati holding, with the contesting Defendants at a fair rate of rent it is difficult to hold that such a settlement was not made as part of their prudent management of the deity's estate. 7. There are several decisions in support of the view that limited owners like Sebaits or Hindu widows or even mortgagees could make settlements of this type while in charge of the property. I may refer to Mahant Jai Krishna Puri v. Bhukhal Gope 6 P.L.J. 638 where it was held that a Mahant was entitled to grant a lease of math lands in the ordinary course of management. In Bhabani Charan Banikya Vs. Suchitra Baisnabi, it was held that a Sebit without legal necessity could grant a transferable and beritable lease to a tenant thereby conferring on him raiyati status. That case is very similar to the present case. There also one of the arguments advanced against the validity of such a settlement was that he effect of granting a lease of riyati status would be to make it a permanent lease and as such would offend the well known principle against the grant of permanent leases by Sebaits. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court repelled this argument by pointing out that though rent might have been fixed in the lease the landlord had always the right to claim enhancement of rent under the tenancy laws in force and consequently such a lease would not be a permanent lease at a fixed rental. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court repelled this argument by pointing out that though rent might have been fixed in the lease the landlord had always the right to claim enhancement of rent under the tenancy laws in force and consequently such a lease would not be a permanent lease at a fixed rental. Here also, though in the impugned lease rent is fixed it will always be open to the landlord under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act to apply for enhancement of rent if such enhancement could be otherwise justified. Similarly, in a later Calcutta decision reported in Pramatha Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Sashi Bhusan Banerjee and Others, it was held that a usufructuary mortgagee in exercise of his right of prudent management of the mortgaged property u/s 76(a) of the T.P. Act could lease out the mortgaged lands be ordinary raiyats. I may also in this connection refer to Biswanath Missir Vs. Ram Prasad Tewari, where there are some interesting observations about the right of a Hindu widow to makeraiyati settlement in the course of the management of her husband's estate. It was pointed out that if the transaction was bona fide and was not intended to defraud the reversioners or it did not in any way depreciate substantially the value of her husband's property a Hindu widow was entitled to make raiyati settlement. This principle should equally apply as regards the right of other class of limited owners such as Sebaits. 8. I may also refer to. pp. 285 to 289 of Mukherji's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust where the right of the Sebaits to grant leases of this type has been fully discussed. 9. Therefore, on the admitted facts of this case I am satisfied that the impugned lease was executed bona fide by the previous Sebait Marfatdars in exercise of their right of prudent management of the deity's property and that the contesting Defendants by virtue of their position as settled raiyats of the village acquired occupancy status. The deity's property was so vast that if cannot be seriously contended that by settling 59 acres of raiyati basis with the contesting Defendants its assets were substantially reduced. The question as to whether such a lease was made for 'legal necessity' as ordinarily understood does not arise. The deity's property was so vast that if cannot be seriously contended that by settling 59 acres of raiyati basis with the contesting Defendants its assets were substantially reduced. The question as to whether such a lease was made for 'legal necessity' as ordinarily understood does not arise. The order of the lower appellate Court is therefore set aside and the trial Court's judgment is maintained. The Appellants are entitled to costs throughout Leave to appeal is granted.