JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This is a Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, in a suit filed them against the Defendant under Order 21, Rule 63 CPC for a declaration that the suit properties are Amruta-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath and that the Defendants are not entitled to proceed in execution against them for realisation of their decretal dues and for injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding in Execution Case No. 343 of 1947 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri. 2. The background in which the dispute arose is shortly this Mahant Badri Narayan Ramanuj Das Guru the late Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das was purchaser of Miadi Sarbarkari tenure, Garh Mrugasira, belonged to Dibyasingh Harichandan and others. The period of settlement of the said Sarbarakari tenure having terminated on the expiry of the term of the Orissa Settlement made in 1897, Rani Harsamukhi the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants as landlord brought a title suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, being O. Section No. 41 of 1928, for recovery of possession of the aforesaid tenure. The said litigation was fought up to High Court who ultimately upheld the decree in favour of the Rani. Thereafter there was an investigation regarding the amount of mesne profits to which the Rani was entitled. That matter also was carried up to the High Court and the amount of mesne profits which the present Defendants as successors-in-interest of the said Rani were to get from the said Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das was ultimately fixed at Rs. 73,804/-. It was in connection with the execution proceedings for realisation of the said mesne profits and costs that certain execution cases had to be filed which formed the genesis of the suit culminating in the present appeal. 3. The landlord decree holder started Execution Case No. 92 of 1937 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, and prayed for attachment and sale of movable properties in the execution petition for satisfaction of the costs of the suit and the appeal up to the High Court amounting to Rs. 2055-2-11. 3. The landlord decree holder started Execution Case No. 92 of 1937 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, and prayed for attachment and sale of movable properties in the execution petition for satisfaction of the costs of the suit and the appeal up to the High Court amounting to Rs. 2055-2-11. In the said execution case the late Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das filed an objection to the sale of movable properties stating that as the decree was against him personally and the properties attached did not belong to him they were not liable to attachment and sale for satisfaction of the decretal dues. Upon the same objection which was treated as an application u/s 47 of the CPC an investigation followed regarding the construction of the said decree put in execution. The executing Court held that the decree was against the late Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das as representing the Uttarparswa Math. Then years thereafter in 1947 the decree-holders started Execution Case No. 343 of 1917 and prayed for attachment and sale of the properties in dispute in the present suit together with two other items alleging that they were Math properties. In this case also a claim was filed on behalf of Lord Jagannath by the Marfatdar. The executing Court released the said two items of Properties (not included in the plaint schedule) from attachment on the ground that there was no decree against Lord Jagannath and the said two items of properties having been Amrut-manohi were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree. With regard to the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule, the learned Subordinate Judge held that as it was decided in the previous Execution Case No. 92 of 1937 that the decree was against the Uttarparswa Math represented by Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das and as the properties given in the plaint schedule belonged to the Math the decree-holders were entitled to proceed against them. Thereafter, a claim case being Misc. Case No. 41 of 1948 was filed on behalf of Lord Jagannath by the Marfatdar claiming that the 19 items of properties attached in the execution case belonged to the deity. Thereafter, a claim case being Misc. Case No. 41 of 1948 was filed on behalf of Lord Jagannath by the Marfatdar claiming that the 19 items of properties attached in the execution case belonged to the deity. In the said execution case the learned Subordinate Judge held that the two items of properties mentioned as items 18 and 19 in the execution petition (which are not in dispute in the present 'Suit under appeal) are Amrut-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath and that they are therefore not liable to be attached and that the other 17 items of properties which are in dispute in the present suit are not the properties of Lord Jagannath but are properties belonging to the Math and consequently they were rightly attached in execution of the decree which was obtained against the Math. It is to render, in effect, this last order passed by the Subordinate Judge in the said Misc. Case No. 41 of 1948 nugatory that the present suit was instituted. The Plaintiffs' case is that none of the Mahants of Uttarparswa Math had any income of their own excepting what came into their own hands from the Amrut-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath; that the Math as such had no properties of its own and that all the properties in dispute had been acquired from out of the income of Amrut-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath and that they had all been mixed up or blended with Lord Jagannath's Amrut-manohi properties and were treated as such the defence as set up in the written statement filed by the Defendants is that the Uttarparswa Math was an ancient institution having its own properties distinctly separate from the properties belonging to Lord Jagannath and that Lord Jagannath had no interest or concern with the properties of the Math. It was further contended on behalf of the Defendants that the properties in dispute are either Amrut-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath or were acquired with the surplus income of Lord Jagannath's Amrut-manohi properties. The Defendants claimed that the properties in dispute belonged to the Uttarparswa Math and that they were rightly attached in execution of the decree which the Defendants had obtained against the Math. The Defendants claimed that the properties in dispute belonged to the Uttarparswa Math and that they were rightly attached in execution of the decree which the Defendants had obtained against the Math. The Defendants repudiated the suggestion made on behalf of the Plaintiffs' that the properties in dispute which belonged to the Math had ever been mixed up or blended with the properties which belonged to Lord Jagannath. The suit was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge who by the said judgment under appeal declared the Plaintiffs' title in respect of items 1, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 and ordered that the Defendants cannot proceed against those properties to realise their decretal dues and that the suit so far as it related to plaint items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 failed and was dismissed. In other words, the Plaintiff out of 17 items of properties failed in respect of 11 items and succeeded with regard to the remaining 6 items as aforesaid. It is against this decision of the learned Subordinate Judge that the present first appeal has been filed. These in short are the relevant facts. 4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the properties in dispute consisting of the said 11 items in respect of which the learned Subordinate Judge had found against the Plaintiffs belonged to Lord Jagannath or to the Math. In other words the whole question is whether the properties in dispute are Math properties or Lord Jagannath's properties. 5. Mr. Muralidhar Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellants-in respect of his contention that the properties in suit were not the properties belonging to the Math as claimed but the Amrut-manohi properties of the Plaintiffs and that the Defendants are not entitled to proceed against them in execution for realisation of their decretal dues-drew our attention to the position of the Maths in the district of Puri. He contended that these properties were Amrut-manohi (literally nectar-food) because they were given with the intention that the proceeds thereof should be spent in offering bhoga before Lord Jagannath. No account of Jagannath worship would be complete without some account of the Maths in Puri. In this context Mr. He contended that these properties were Amrut-manohi (literally nectar-food) because they were given with the intention that the proceeds thereof should be spent in offering bhoga before Lord Jagannath. No account of Jagannath worship would be complete without some account of the Maths in Puri. In this context Mr. Muralidhar Mohanty relied on Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers (Puri) by Malley (Revised Edition 1929) pages 22-123 where the position of the Maths and the Mahants in relation to Lord Jagannath has been stated. The learned Counsel appears to rely on this authority purporting to be in support of his contention that the Mathsare monastic houses originally founded with the object of feeding travellers, beggars, and ascetics, of giving religious instructions to chelas or disciples. The heads of these religious houses who are called Mahants or Math-dharis, are elected from among the chelas. Mahants are the gurus or spiritual guides of many people, who present the Maths with presents of money and endowments in land. It appears that both Siva and Vaishnava Maths exist in Puri. The lands of the latter used to be known as Amrut-manohi and that the Mahaprasad should be distributed among pilgrims, beggars and ascetics; they are distinct from the Amrutmanohi lands of the temple itself, which are under the superintendence of the Raja. It further proceeds on to state that there are 70 Maths in Puri town including the Saiva Maths, Sankaracharya Math, Vaishnava Maths, Gauriya Maths, Achari Math and Uttaraparswa Math with which we are directly concerned in this appeal. The Gazetteer describes Uttaraparswa Math as one of the oldest and most highly esteemed, having been permitted to supply a special bhoga of Lord Jagannath (Mohana-bhoga). In other words it was a part of the scheme for worship of Lord Jagannath and had no separate entity of its own. In other words according to the Plaintiffs' version the Math and Lord Jagannath were not distinct from one another. But we are not satisfied that this is the correct view as to the relationship between Lord Jagannath and the Math. On the other hand, from the final Report on the Revision Settlement of Orissa (1922-1932 A.D.) by W.W Dalziel, Settlement Officer, Orissa, at page 120 it is clear that the Uttarparswa Math had a separate entity and was holding properties of its own. On the other hand, from the final Report on the Revision Settlement of Orissa (1922-1932 A.D.) by W.W Dalziel, Settlement Officer, Orissa, at page 120 it is clear that the Uttarparswa Math had a separate entity and was holding properties of its own. For ready reference we are quoting below relevant passages from the Report (Paragraph 291 page 120): 291. Kodhar khas mahal, XXX. There are 3,007 acres in 13 villages under sub-proprietors, and 6,754 acres in 20 village; under the Uttarparswa math and the Jaggannath Ballav Committee as tenure-holders on a quit rent of Rs. 97/- At the British conquest the whole estate was found to be in possession of the mahant of the Uttarparswa math, but in 1834 the investigation into his right to hold the land free of revenue disclosed that the math had received no proprietary right but merely an assignment of revenue from the Maharatta Government. In 1843 it was let in farm for Rs. 6,739/- out of which a sum of Rs. 3,467/- was paid to the math annually. But in 1865 this money payment was commuted to a grant of certain villages. A payment of Rs. 2,667/- to the Jagannath Ballav endowment was similarly commuted. Xxx. In the course of the present settlement the point was raised whether the arrangement made in 1865 was intended to be permanent and whether Government could now settle fair rents in the transferred villages and appropriate the increase. The original documents did not make this matter clear. At the last revenue settlement it was held that the quit rent payable for these villages was fixed in perpetuity. This view has again been taken at this settlement on a reference to Government. The Uttarparswa math and the Jagannath Ballav Charitable Endowment have been recorded a permanent tenure-holders on rents fixed in perpetuity. Rent settlement u/s 119 was not applied to the tenants under these tenures. x x x x From this it is clear that the Uttarparswa Math had a separate entity, recorded as a permanent tenure-holder. Then again from paragraph 46 at page 18 of Dalziel Report, it further appears that Amrut-manohi is one of the classes of revenue-free estates, the term Amrut-manohi being a special term for grants in endowment of Jagannath Temple at Puri. The management of these religious grants to deities lay with trustees who were designated Sebayats or Marfatdars. Then again from paragraph 46 at page 18 of Dalziel Report, it further appears that Amrut-manohi is one of the classes of revenue-free estates, the term Amrut-manohi being a special term for grants in endowment of Jagannath Temple at Puri. The management of these religious grants to deities lay with trustees who were designated Sebayats or Marfatdars. The word 'Sebait' is generally used for the trustees in whom the property is vested on behalf of the idol, while Marfatdar is applied to those who look after the management and the routine duties in connection with the endowment. Occasional it is the superior authority who is described as marfatdar and the actual manager as Sebait. In this background of the math and Lord Jagannath we have to consider the issue in this appeal in the light of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 6. Mr. Muralidhar Mohanty strongly relied on Ext. 8 series being rent receipts purported to be in favour of Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu to show that the rent income from the properties was received on behalf of Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu and not the math. It is significant however that these rent receipts Exts. 8 to 8 are all dated April. 28, 1949, that is to say, almost immediately after the suit was filed on March 11, 1949, It was therefore rightly commented on behalf of the Defendants that these rent receipts were procured to create evidence in favour of Lord Jagannath. These documents therefore do not in our opinion help the Plaintiffs' case. Mr. Mohanty then relied on Ext. 2 being a certified copy of Khatian of Khata No. 115 of Markandeswar Sahi (Math site) dated February 22, 1899 from which it appears that the property referred to in the document was recorded in the name of Sri Jagannath Dev through Mahant Ramanuj Das and the furthermore it was described as Amrut-manohi estate thereby purporting to show that it belonged to Lord Jagannath and not to the Math. The Plaintiffs' only witness P.W. 1 however described Ext. 2 as the settlement Khatian of the site of Uttarparswa Math. This part of the evidence of the witness in our view is not correct because the document on the face of it does not refer to Uttarparswa Math as the witness alleged in his evidence. The document refers to Markandeswar Sahi which was Amrut-manohi property of Sri Jagannath. 2 as the settlement Khatian of the site of Uttarparswa Math. This part of the evidence of the witness in our view is not correct because the document on the face of it does not refer to Uttarparswa Math as the witness alleged in his evidence. The document refers to Markandeswar Sahi which was Amrut-manohi property of Sri Jagannath. It was never the Defendant's case that Lord Jagannath had no property of his own. All that the Defendants wanted to establish in the suit was that Uttarparswa Math as a separate entity had property of its own distinct from the properties of Lord Jagannath the entire confusion and difficulty arose from the fact of dual character of Mahant Ramanuj Das-his capacity as Mahant of Uttarparswa Math and as Sebait Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath. Ext. 2 shows that Mahant Ramanuj Das in respect of the property at Markendeswar Sahi was the Sebait Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath and it was in that capacity he was shown in that document. This circumstance however does not destroy or affect the status of Mahant Ramanuj Das as Mahant of Uttar parswa Math which he was managing in his other capacity as Mahant. 7. The Defendants case that the Math had got its separate existence with properties apart from those that were endowed in favour of Lord Jagannath was not in any way inconsistent with Ext. 2 showing that certain properties appeared to have been Amrut-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath which Govind Ramanuj Das was also managing as Sebait Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath as aforesaid. In this view of the document we do not see how Ext. 2 helps the Plaintiffs to prove that the properties in dispute which are the subject matter of the present appeal are also Amrut manohi properties of Lord Jagannath and not the properties of Uttarparswa Math. 8. The primary purpose of Math from very ancient times was to encourage and foster spiritual learning. The monastic institutions did immense service to society. That was the reason why large grants of land were made in their favour by princes and noble men. As was observed by Subramaniya Ayyar O.C.J. in Vidyapurna Tirtha Swarmi v. V. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami ILR Mad. 435, 439. 9. The monastic institutions did immense service to society. That was the reason why large grants of land were made in their favour by princes and noble men. As was observed by Subramaniya Ayyar O.C.J. in Vidyapurna Tirtha Swarmi v. V. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami ILR Mad. 435, 439. 9. Though in recent times the men who have succeeded to the headship of the Maths have generally been inferior, their predecessors, as a whole were men of learning and piety who adequately ministered to the spiritual wants of the community, and even now the heads of some of these Maths enjoy the esteem of the community and continue to serve more or less the purpose intended. Such having been the origin and object of these institutions, which have embraced the whole Hindu population of the country, numbered, among their adherents and supporters and princes and noble men, it goes without saying that the establishment of these Maths was followed by their being more or less well endowed. 10. We have also a decision of this Court in Adhikari Narottam Das v. B.K. Patro and Ors. 21 C.L.T. 271 where it was held that the primary distinction between a temple and a Math is that the central part of the temple is the idol while in the math the presiding element is not the deity but the ascetic or religious teacher who with his disciples from a spiritual brotherhood. In the case of a temple the idol is the grantee of the endowment and is the owner in an ideal sense. In the case of a Math the ownership is vested in the entire institution represented by the Mahant or the religious head. The deity of a temple is a juristic person. Similarly, under Hindu law, Maths, Choultries and similar institutions are a class of foundations raised to the status of a juristic person and can became the bearer of rights and duties. For our purpose it is enough that the Math as such is distinctly separate entity capable of owning property. 11. In this view of distinct separate entity of both Uttarparswa Math and Lord Jagannath both capable of owning properties as juristic persons in the eye of law-we do not see how the properties of both under the management of one common manager, namely, Mahant Ramanuj Das, came to be merged in the estate of Lord Jagannath as alleged. 11. In this view of distinct separate entity of both Uttarparswa Math and Lord Jagannath both capable of owning properties as juristic persons in the eye of law-we do not see how the properties of both under the management of one common manager, namely, Mahant Ramanuj Das, came to be merged in the estate of Lord Jagannath as alleged. As we have already stated, the entire confusion arose out of common management of the separate properties of both Uttarparswa Math and Lord Jagannath by a common manager in the person of Mahant Ramanuj Das. One must not lose sight of the fact that Mahant Ramanuj Das was functioning throughout in dual capacity, namely, as Mahant in respect of Uttarparswa Math properties and as Sebait Marfatdar in respect of the properties of Lord Jagannath. The common management by one common manager certainly did not change the separate distinct character of the properties of the two entities which he was so managing; but they continued to remain entirely separate from each other in fact as aforesaid. In other words by reason of common management the properties of Uttarparswa Math and those of Lord Jagannath did not lose their separate character. 12. Mr. Muralidhar Mohanty, by reference to the account books, further contended that the major portion of the properties appeared to have belonged to Lord Jagannath and not to the Math. That, however, is a different matter. As to how much of the properties belonged to Lord Jagannath and how much to Uttarparswa Math is a question of fact which have to be decided on the materials available before the Court. It is quite sufficient for the Defendants if the duality of Uttarparswa Math and Lord Jagannath is accepted. Once this duality is established the rest is entirely a matter of evidence as to the quantity of the properties which they each respectively owned. 13. Mr. R.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants, contended that the suit having been one under Order 21, Rule 63, CPC it was the Plaintiffs who must establish their title before they could get a declaration in their favour. The learned Counsel then drew our attention to Ext. 9, a judgment of this High Court in Civil Revision No. 22 of 1949 dated March 15, 1950 directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge in Misc. The learned Counsel then drew our attention to Ext. 9, a judgment of this High Court in Civil Revision No. 22 of 1949 dated March 15, 1950 directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1948 in Execution Case No. 343 of 1947 referred to above. Their Lordships indicated the line in which this question was to be approached keeping in view the dual capacity of Mahant Ramanuj Das as Sebait Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath and the Mahant of Uttarparswa Math. At the trial of the present suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, the Plaintiffs called only one witness namely P.W. 1 Golak Behari Das who was the Sadar employee of the Plaintiffs for 17 or 18 years. In cross examination the witness said that the presiding deity of the Math Raghunath Jew had nothing to do with the Lord Jagannath. The witness further said that Raghunath Jew installed later than the founding of the Math. In this context the witness referred to Ext. A relating to payment of 'Bheti' meaning presents by disciples. Ext. A being an entry in the Rokar showing income dated September 10, 1924 shows that there was credit entry (Jama) on account of Bheti on the occasion of Sunia in the name of Sriman Goswami Maharaj Jew. The amount so credited was Rs. 102-4-0.1 his indeed shows that as early as 1924 there were Bheti entries in favour of Sriman Goswami Maharaj Jew referring to the Mahant of the Math. It also appears from records that there was a motor car in the Math and also a horse carriage and a lodging House, as appears from the evidence of D.W. 2 and P.W. 1. There is also supporting documentary evidence being Ext. B series showing entries in 1924, 1930, in Rokars showing various expenses (Kharcha) on account of the Math to which we shall hereafter refer in another context. 14. In the last resort the Plaintiffs also sought to make a case that the income from the suit properties having all along been blended with the funds of Lord Jagannath and treated as Amrut-manohi properties, the claim that they were Math properties should be rejected. In support of this contention, the Plaintiffs relied on accounts for the years 1924-1930. 14. In the last resort the Plaintiffs also sought to make a case that the income from the suit properties having all along been blended with the funds of Lord Jagannath and treated as Amrut-manohi properties, the claim that they were Math properties should be rejected. In support of this contention, the Plaintiffs relied on accounts for the years 1924-1930. Two Rokars-one relating to the year 1332 (1924-25) and the other relating to the year 1333 (1930-31) were filed purporting to be Rokars dealing with income from the properties of Lord Jagannath and expenditure in connection with the affairs of Lord Jagannath. The Plaintiffs also relied on Ext. 7 series purporting to show that on various occasions income from several of the properties in dispute had been entered therein and that on several occasions the expenditure for paying rent for some of the properties in dispute had been entered in the accounts. On the basis of these entries it was argued that these properties were properties belonging to Lord Jagannath. As against this evidence the Defendants relied on Ext. A series and Ext. B series where there are several Jama and Kharcha entries in the said documents being the two Rokars relating to various items of income and expenses which undoubtedly related to or concerned the Math. The Plaintiffs' witness P.W. 1 in his evidence said that the accounts of the income of the originally endowed properties as well as the subsequently acquired properties were mixed up. He also said that the Plaintiffs had no separate properties and that the disputed properties were acquired in the name of the Mahant. In support of the alleged blending, the witness, by reference to the records referred to in his deposition, said that the said records showed the alleged blending of income of the disputed properties with Amrut-manohi properties and the payment of rent and revenue paid from Amrut-manohi properties of Lord Jagannath. The witness also said that the money-lending business was carried on in the name of the Mahant and that all suits were filed in the name of the Mahant and not as Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath. He then proceeded on to say that the disputed properties were purchased in auction in execution of decrees passed in the suits filed in the name of the Mahant. He then proceeded on to say that the disputed properties were purchased in auction in execution of decrees passed in the suits filed in the name of the Mahant. The witness also said that some of the disputed properties were recorded in settlement papers in the name of the Mahant and this is also quite apparent from the documents relied on in the suit including Ext. F series being Khatians of different Mouzas, from which it is quite clear that Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das was recorded as the tenant. It is thus evident that by reason of common management of Lord Jagannath's and Uttarparswa math's properties by Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das both as Mahant of the Math and as sebait Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath, entries have been made in a sod of 'omnibus account' in the manner as appears from the documents. In spite of such entries the properties did not however lose their respective separate character. This was the view which was expressed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1937 61 (Privy Council) in the context of the position of a Karta of a Hindu joint family managing both the joint family as also his self-acquired properties in almost similar circumstances, as in the present case. Their Lordships observed that there was no evidence of 'blending' that so far as it went it was evidence the other way. Even in the case of a Karta mixing his own moneys with family moneys, the mere fact of a common till or a common bank account, need of itself effect no blending so long as accounts are kept. In that particular case, which was a dispute between the uncle and nephew the account books did not make out that the uncle and nephew blended their fund; still less that they presented the blend to the joint family. In a recent decision of this Court myself sitting with Rao, J. in Gangadhar Jena v. Uchhab Jena and Ors. In that particular case, which was a dispute between the uncle and nephew the account books did not make out that the uncle and nephew blended their fund; still less that they presented the blend to the joint family. In a recent decision of this Court myself sitting with Rao, J. in Gangadhar Jena v. Uchhab Jena and Ors. ILR 1959 Cutt 167 we had an occasion to discuss this aspect of law in the context of a Hindu joint family business where there were entries in the Daily Cash-book in the handwriting of the son and the question was whether these entries were sufficient to make it a joint family business or was the self acquired business of the Defendant father but by reason of subsequent blending it lost its character as self acquired business and became the joint family business of the son and father. On the facts of that case it was held that the question whether a person had by his acts made property which was originally his self-acquisition, joint property was entirely one of fact to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case; but a clear intention to waive his separate rights must be established and not inferred from acts which may have been done merely from kindness or, affection. In that particular case the father's merely allowing his adopted son to write the accounts etc. was no evidence of such intention to make his self-acquired business joint property,. Furthermore, the entries in the Rokar in that particular case did not go beyond proving that some of the son's separate earnings were mixed up with the business of the father whom the son used as a 'banker or cashier.' This case was decided on the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case cited above. In the present case also the same considerations apply. It is apparent that Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das had three fold capacities in which he functioned, namely, his personal individual capacity as Mahant of Uttarparswa Math and as Sebait Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath as aforesaid. Ext. A clearly indicates that certain Bhetis, that is to say, presents from disciples were credited in the name of Sriman Goswami Maharaj referring to Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das. The genesis and significance of Ext. Ext. A clearly indicates that certain Bhetis, that is to say, presents from disciples were credited in the name of Sriman Goswami Maharaj referring to Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das. The genesis and significance of Ext. 8 series all dated April 1949, immediately after the suit, to which we have already referred, have now become apparent in the context of the Plaintiffs' contentions. Mr. R.N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Defendants, while commenting on these documents (Ext. 8 series) exposed the motive of the Plaintiffs in introducing them in their suit for the purpose of showing that the properties belonged to Lord Jagannath and not to the Math. The defence witnesses were two, namely, D.W. 1 Tahasildar of Paikpara and D.W. 2, agent of Paikpara estte. D.W. 1 said that the suit properties belonged to Uttarparswa Math. He also said that the name of Lord Jagannath in Ext. 8 series was a mistake for Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das. He admitted that he wrote it on the instructions of one Padmacharan Jena and Golak Babu. The witness said that he discovered the mistake and told the persons concerned for rectification. He also said that in 1950 the receipts were granted in the name of the Mahant and the counter-foils of the receipts were marked Ext. D to D-8 all in the name of Govind Ramanuj Das which all were in the handwriting of the witness. The witness further explained that Ext. D-9 was the counterfoil in the name of Lord Jagannath in 'respect of Lord Jagannath's property Khata No. 159 of Badagam Khata marked Ext. D-10 thus showing that separate accounts are maintained in respect of Lord Jagannath and Uttarparswa Math. In further support of the Defendants' case, D.W. 1 proved the counter-foils in respect of the suit properties granted in the name of Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das all of the year 1948. The said counter-foils were written in the handwriting 'of one Chintamani Sen. The witness knew his handwriting and signature on the documents. These counter-foils were marked ext-Doll to D-19. The next defence witness was D.W. 2 who in his evidence said that the Math had sufficient properties and that the Mahant had income from Bheti presents from disciples and Salami. The said counter-foils were written in the handwriting 'of one Chintamani Sen. The witness knew his handwriting and signature on the documents. These counter-foils were marked ext-Doll to D-19. The next defence witness was D.W. 2 who in his evidence said that the Math had sufficient properties and that the Mahant had income from Bheti presents from disciples and Salami. The witness said that all the properties belonged to the Math but some properties were subject to performance I of Bhog to Lord Jagannath which were the Amrut-manohi lands of 'Lord Jagannath. This whiless clearly explained that the suit properties were not acquired from out of the usufruct or surplus of Lord Jagannath's Amrut-manohi lands. He also said that the Math had money-lending and paddy lending business and the properties were acquired in suits for recovery of money in the Math's name and that they were the properties of the Math. Expenses for salary of Pandit and Sanskrit Toll were also met out of the Math funds; and the expenses of Raghunath Jew, the presiding deity of the Math, were also met from the Math funds. There is also documentary evidence in corroboration of what D.W. 2 stated in his evidence, namely, Ext. B series. Ext. B and Ext. B-1 respectively dated September 15 and 26, 1930 are entries in Rokar showing expenditure on account of payment of salary to the Pandit of the Math's Sanskrit Toll. Ext. B-2, Ext. B-3 and Ext. B-4 entries in Rokar respectively dated September 14, 16 and 17, 1930 also show debit entries (Kharcha) on account of the Math. 15. An important aspect of this case is that entries in the settlement records show that the Math was the recorded owner in respect of certain properties. This by itself leads to a strong presumption in favour of the Math. The Defendants strongly relied in these settlement entries Exts. F to F-7 being Khatians of different Mouzas with their respective Khata. Nos. Exts. F and F-7 stand in the name of Mahant Govind Ramanuj Das. These Khatians show that properties covered them do not stand in the name of Lord Jagannath. It was contended on behalf of the Defendants that wherever the properties stand in the name of the Mahant only without any reference to Lord Jagannath such properties cannot be deemed to be properties of Lord Jagannath. These Khatians show that properties covered them do not stand in the name of Lord Jagannath. It was contended on behalf of the Defendants that wherever the properties stand in the name of the Mahant only without any reference to Lord Jagannath such properties cannot be deemed to be properties of Lord Jagannath. On the evidence led on behalf of the Plaintiffs, they could not rebut the presumption in favour of the Defendants from these entries in settlement records. In this context, reference was also made to ext 1 being a certified copy of Kabuliy at granted in favour of the Government dated November 22, 1899. This document refers Mahant Ramprasanna Ramanuj Das Jew in the remarks column at the last page of the document signed in the presence of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Orissa. This document shows that even as early as 1899 this consciousness on the part of the Goswami Jew as having been the Mahant in respect of the Math was there. Of course it was nobody's case that these properties were the personal properties of the Mahant. Undoubtedly, this exhibit along with other documents relates to Lakhraj Bahel lands standing in the name of Mahant Ramanuj Das. These documents show that the settlement authorities of the time were conscious of the difference between the Math properties and Lord Jagannath's properties. Furthermore, it is also significant that the Mahant himself did not come forward to give evidence that the Math had no properties. Ext. 3 being Mahalwar Khewat of tauzi No. 409 of Mauza Helari under the signature of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 27-4-1949 shows that the zamindar' name in respect of the same tauzi was Mahant Ramprasanna Ramanuj Das Guru Ramakrushna Ramanuj Das. This again is an entry in old revenue settlement papers which raises a presumption against the Plaintiffs which it was far them to rebut by satisfactory evidence in which they failed. 16. Lastly the non-production of certain material documents by the Plaintiffs in whose possession these documents are again raises a strong presumption against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' only witness P.W. 1 himself in his deposition referred to certain documents which they haw ever did not produce at the trial. It appears from the evidence of this witness that there was a list prepared by predecessars as the extent of properties originally end awed and these that were acquired later. The Plaintiffs' only witness P.W. 1 himself in his deposition referred to certain documents which they haw ever did not produce at the trial. It appears from the evidence of this witness that there was a list prepared by predecessars as the extent of properties originally end awed and these that were acquired later. The said list is stated ta have been prepared 8 or 10 years back from the time the witness depased in May 1950. The witness said that the list was last now. According to P.W. 1 this Jist was prepared with reference to Sanads etc., that it was with the then Mahant and not kept in the recard raam. The said list was made at the time of Govind Ramanuj Das who died in 1947. It alsa appears that there were several papers in the Math and that after the death of the predecessar of the present Mahant, a Manager was appointed. These documents along with all papers are stated to have been last and papers in books torn. Same of the ledgers are also stated to have been lost. As regards rent receipts, it is significant that same rent receipts which were granted during the pendency of the suit wine produced, namely Ext. 8 series the genuineness of which was questioned as aforesaid. P.W. 1 said that the other receipts were last. According to his evidence he cannot lay in whose name they were given. The witness could not say how many receipts were lost unless he saw the Math records. This aspect of the matter also raises a strong suspicion against the Plaintiffs. The Sanands and the list of properties stated to have been prepared as aforesaid could have been best evidence to rebut the presumption from entries in the settlement records. Mere oral statement that everything was last is not sufficient explanation for their non-production at the trial. Undoubtedly the burden of proof on the Plaintiffs was heavy. They could not rebut the presumption against them. 17. In our view the Plaintiffs have failed to establish their claim in respect of the properties in dispute. The decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is there fare upheld. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with casts throughout. Narasimham, C.J. 18. I agree. 19. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed