JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This is a Plaintiff?s second appeal from toe reversing decision of the lower appellate Court. The Plaintiffs 1 to 5, who are some of villagers of village Paloghadi, representing, the Deity Raghunath Mahaprabhu Plaintiff No. 6, have filed the suit for a declaration that they have unfettered right of management of the affairs of the temple and also of the presiding Deity (Plaintiff No. 6). They have prayed for recovery of Schedule ?A? lands which are in possession of Defendants 1 to 3 are Archaks of the Deity. The suit was filed by the Plaintiffs in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The main defence case, inter alia, is that the Defendants are sevak trustees of this religious institution and are in possession of the lands in that capacity. The other defences adopted by the Defendants are not necessary to be stated in view d my conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted as indicated hereinafter. 3. Ten issues were framed of which issues 7 and 8 are respectively as follows: 7. Whether the suit is maintainable? 8. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. These two issues hinge upon the question whether the institution is a public one or a private institution. That very question was raised before the trial Court and? parties led evidence on that point. The trial Court held that the Deity is a private Deity of the Gouda family of a mauza Paloghadi, but the entire body of villagers are the hereditary trustees of the institution. On appeal, the lower appellate Court has held that the Deity is a public deity and, as such, it further held, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and grant the reliefs claimed. 5. It appears to me that the findings of the lower appellate Court that the Deity is a public Deity and the institution is a public institution are well-founded ones. Whether a religious institution is a private or public institution depends upon whether, the beneficiaries are the public at large or even a par t of the public. Even according, to the finding of the trial Court that the institution was for the benefit of the whole Gouda community will also lead to the conclusion that it is a public institution. Even according, to the finding of the trial Court that the institution was for the benefit of the whole Gouda community will also lead to the conclusion that it is a public institution. I do not find any legal infirmity in the findings of the lower appellate Court. 6. Once it is found that the Deity is a public Deity and the institution is a public institution, Section 73(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act imposes upon the Civil Court a bar of taking cognizance of the present disputes and try the suit. This section provides: (1) No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration of a religious institution or in respect of any other matter on dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of la w, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act. There are other provisions in the Act providing for removal of trustees and appointment of new trustees for the temple office and for management of the temple. The Endowment Commissioner has full control over the institution and there are adequate provisions for granting the principal reliefs sought for in the suit. I have no doubt in my mind that in view of Section 73(1) of the aforesaid Act, the present suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Once the Civil Court is found to lack initial jurisdiction to try the suit, all the findings of the Civil Court on the issues other than the finding on the issue whether the Deity is or is not a public Deity must stand annulled. It may be stated that this decision shall not debar the Plaintiffs from approaching the appropriate authority invested with such powers under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act for appropriate reliefs. 7. I, therefore, hold that there is no merit in this appeal ?which is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will, be no order for costs of this Court. Final Result : Dismissed