JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Puri, in Title Appeal No. 15/74 of 1976/73 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, in O.S. No. 51/19 of 1972/62 (I). 2. Plaintiffs are the purchasers of the suit land appertaining to khata no. 139 and plot no. 175 having an area of Ac. 366 decimals of village Patapur. The suit land along with some other properties were purchased in the name of deity Radhakanta Dev (defendant no. 2) by late Achutananda Das and Guru Gopinath Das from out of their personal income and the income of these properties was being spent by the late mahants for their own maintenance and sebapuja of defendant no. 2. The properties were purchased in the name of defendant no. 2 only with a view to give a colour of nominal debottar. The late Mahanta Achutananda Das sold away the suit land to proforma defendant no. 3 Laxman Misra for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/- by a registered sale deed (Ext. 1) dated 6-2-1950 and delivered possession thereof. The sale proceeds were utilised for purchasing Ac. 1.79? decimals of land from one Ghanasyam Das of Bisnupur in order to amalgamate this land with other lands which was about 16 acres in extent and make the entire area a compact one. Defendant no. 2 being in need of money sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs on 14-4-1961 by two registered sale deeds (Exts. 4 and 5) and delivered possession thereof and since then the plaintiffs continued to remain in possession. On 18-2-1968 the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 obtained a decree in a case under section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and in pursuance of the said decree passed by the Commissioner of Endowments (defendant no. 4), the Collector, Puri directed the Tahasildar, Nimapara to make delivery of possession of the suit land in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by 20-12-1968. 4), the Collector, Puri directed the Tahasildar, Nimapara to make delivery of possession of the suit land in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by 20-12-1968. The plaintiffs allege that the order of the Endowment Commissioner passed under section 25 of the Act is without jurisdiction and void as the suit property was a nominal debottar property and the transfer was made by the late Mahant in course of due and prudent management of the estate and for the benefit and improvement of the Math and the impugned transfer of the suit land did not require the sanction of the Endowment Commissioner. The plaintiffs further allege that they are not bound by the order of the Commissioner as they were not given an opportunity to be heard and the order was passed behind their back. They further allege that they have perfected their right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession. As the order of the Commissioner threw cloud of dust on the title of the plaintiffs, they filed the suit. 3. Defendant no. 1 Nabaghana Das, the present Mahant and defendant no. 2, the deity, have filed a joint written statement. They alleged that defendant no. 2 is a public deity and Syamasundarpur Math is a public institution and the suit properties are debottar properties. They allege that the alienation's in favour of defendant no. 3 made on 6-2-1950 is not valid as the same was done without the permission of the Endowment Commissioner and as such the plaintiffs did not acquire valid title in respect of the suit properties. They further allege that transfer made in favour of defendant no. 3 was neither an act of prudent management nor it was beneficial to the estate. They claim that the order passed by the Commissioner under section 25 of the Act is quite valid and binding. They also deny the claim of adverse possession by the plaintiffs. Defendants 3 and 4 were ex-parte although defendant no. 3 filed his written statement. The trial Court found that the sale made by late Mahant was an act of prudent management and was beneficial to the institution as he disposed of the distant lands from which no income was derived and purchased lands which were situated near the lands measuring about 16 acres belonging to the deity and amalgamated the lands in order to make it a compact one. The trial Court, however held :- ".....there is no evidence that these lands (suit lands) have been specifically endowed to Syamasundarpur Math, in my view section 58 of 1939 Act has no application to the sale deed Ext. 2 and as such sanction of Endowment Commissioner is not necessary for this Ext. 2." He also found that the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession. The appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court that the alienation made by late Mahant is an act of prudent management and as the suit properties belonged to the Math, alienation thereof without the prior sanction under section 58 of the Act of 1939 is not valid and the order of the Endowment Commissioner under section 25 of the Act of 1951, by sending requisition to the Collector, Puri, directing to deliver the properties to defendants 1 and 2 is valid and binding on the parties. He further held that the plaintiffs have not established that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. 4. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that at the time of transfer (6-2-1950) the provisions of section 58 of 1939 Act was applicable. The provisions of section 58(1) is quoted below for reference. "No exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple or of any specific endowment attached to a math or temple shall be valid or operative unless it is necessary or beneficial to the math or temple and is sanctioned by the commissioner and two persons, who shall be appointed by the Provincial Government in this behalf." But in the new Act (Act of 1951) the corresponding provision is section 19(1) which is wider in scope. While section 58 of the old Act prohibits exchange, sale or mortgage of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple without the permission of the Endowment Commissioner, in the new section 19(1) of the Act of 1951 it is provided that no transfer by exchange, sale or mortgage of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, shall be made unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner. In this case, as the suit property did not belonging to a temple or a specific endowment attached to the math, no permission of the Commissioner was necessary. As such the action taken under section 25 of the Act of 1951 is invalid. The appellate Court should not have reversed the decision of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have acquired title by adverse possession, and, as it has been found by both the Courts that the sale of the disputed property was an act of prudent management of the late Mahant, the sale is valid and binding on the parties. On the other hand, Mr. Rath appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the documentary evidence, specially Exts. C (Khatian), E (charge list dated 1-5-1960), F(list of properties of the math dated 2-12-1956) and J(copy of the order of the Commissioner dated 8-4-1960 declaring the defendant no. 1 to be major and allowing him to manage the institution as hereditary trustee) will go to show that the properties belong to the math. As the deity is a part of the math and the suit properties belonging to the math, without the permission of the Endowment Commissioner, the sale of the properties is invalid. He further contended that there is no question of adverse possession by the plaintiffs as the application under section 25 was filed on 6-1-1962, prior to the completion of 12 years from the date of sale which was on 6-2-1950 and that the decision of the learned appellate Court cannot be assailed on any ground whatsoever. 5. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that the properties (including the suit properties) have been recorded as Sthitiban properties in the name of deity Radhakanta Dev as per Ext. C and those properties cannot be said to be the properties of the math, as the deity is neither a temple nor math. An idol may be situated in a math, but there is nothing to show that the place is used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof. So defendant no. 2, the deity, cannot be called a temple as it does not come under the definition of 'temple' according to sub-section (13) of section 6 of the Act of 1939. So defendant no. 2, the deity, cannot be called a temple as it does not come under the definition of 'temple' according to sub-section (13) of section 6 of the Act of 1939. The definition of 'math' as given in clause (7) of section 6 of the Act of 1939 is as follows :- "'math' means an institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion presided over by a person whose duty is to engage himself in spiritual service or who exercises or claim to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and succession to whose office devolves in accordance with the direction of the founder of the institution or is regulated by usage; and includes places of religious worship other than a temple and also places of instruction or places for the maintenance of vidyarthies or places for rendering charitable or religious services in general which are or may be appurtenant to such institution." Defendant no. 2, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be brought under the definition of 'Math'. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned lower Court that the deity, defendant no. 2, is neither a math nor a temple cannot be assailed. It has also not been proved that it is a specific endowment. Though 'specific endowment' has not been defined in the old Act, the definition of 'specific endowment' has been given in sub-section (xiv) of section 3 of the Act of 1951. 6. Mr. Rath submitted that defendant no. 2 is the presiding deity of the math and though the suit properties have been recorded in the name of the deity, the deity is not an independent entity holding properties independently. Although some properties including the suit properties stood in the name of the deity, still the same were being managed by the mahant and from the income, the math was being maintained and the sebapuja of the deity was being performed, but no definite portion out of the income from the properties recorded in the name of the deity was being set apart for the sebapuja of the deity. The sebapuja of the deity was just one of the many functions of the math and, in fact, the properties standing in the name of defendant no. 2 was the properties of the math. Learned counsel made a reference to Ext. The sebapuja of the deity was just one of the many functions of the math and, in fact, the properties standing in the name of defendant no. 2 was the properties of the math. Learned counsel made a reference to Ext. F, the order of the Endowment Commissioner dated 3-11-1951 by which the management of the institution Radhakanta math of Syamsundarpur was taken over by the Endowment Commissioner and interim trustees were appointed after the death of mahant Achutananda Das in the year 1951 as defendant no. 1, Mahant Nabaghana Das, was a minor. Ext. H shows the list of properties of the math that was handed over to the interim trustees by the Inspector of Endowments on 2-12-1956. In this list, the properties recorded in the name of defendant no. 2 have also been included as the properties of the math which has been taken over possession by the interim trustees. Further the patta in connection with the properties of defendant no. 2 in khatian No. 139 including the suit properties were taken possession of by the interim trustees. Ext. J is the order of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 8-4-1960 declaring the present defendant no. 1 as the successor of deceased Mahanta and was given charge of the properties of the math on his attaining majority Ext. E dated 1-5-1963 is the list of properties of the math. It was handed over to defendant no. 1 as he was declared major and was put in charge of the management of the math. In this list, the properties in the name of the deity have been recorded as the properties of the math. The patta etc. of the properties in the name of the deity were also handed over to defendant no. 1. In this list also the Bigraha of Radhakanta Dev (which is inside the math) has been included From the above documents, Mr. Rath argued that the suit properties belonged to the math and have been always treated as such and the suit properties which were already sold have not been mentioned in the charge list, but the patta with respect to the disputed properties has been mentioned in the charge list. So according to Mr. Rath argued that the suit properties belonged to the math and have been always treated as such and the suit properties which were already sold have not been mentioned in the charge list, but the patta with respect to the disputed properties has been mentioned in the charge list. So according to Mr. Rath, as the suit properties belonged to the math, alienation thereof without prior sanction under section 58 of the Act of 1939 is not valid and so the order of the Commissioner under section 25 of the Act of 1951 by sending requisition to the Collector, Puri, directing to deliver possession of the suit properties to defendants 1 & 2 is valid and binding on the parties. Further, it transpires that in the proceeding before the Commissioner of Endowments in O.P. No. 437/62, the plaintiffs as well as defendant no. 3 were made respondents and had notice and filed written statement in the case and the Commissioner has passed the order holding an enquiry as contemplated under the law. 7. Mr. Misra submitted that the deity is not an essential element in a Math and it is not the object of the Mutt as in the case of debutter to perpetuate the service or worship of an idol in a particular manner. In the present case the deity (defendant no. 2) is not a part of the math and the facts and circumstances show that the deity has no connection with the math and was holding the properties in its own name which are not part of the math properties. Ext. C, the record-of-right, shows that the disputed properties have been recorded in the name of deity Radhakanta Dev. The rent receipts, Ext. D, also shows that the rent has been paid on behalf of deity Radhakanta Dev. Under section 58 of the 1939 Act no exchange, sale or mortgage etc. of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple or of any specific endowment attached to a math or temple will be valid or operative unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner. Under section 58 of the 1939 Act no exchange, sale or mortgage etc. of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple or of any specific endowment attached to a math or temple will be valid or operative unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner. As it has not been established by any evidence that the deity is a part of the math nor it has been proved that the suit properties belong to the math, section 58 of the Act of 1939 has no application to this case and as such no sanction of the Commissioner as provided under section 58 was necessary to sell the property. Therefore, Ext. 2 is not hit by section 58 of the Act of 1939 and convey valid title. Considering the argument of both sides, the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, while agreeing with the trial Court, I hold that the sale deed, Ext. 2, which was executed in favour of defendant no. 3 in respect of the suit land is legal, valid and binding on defendants 1 and 2 and the sale deeds, Exts. 4 and 5, executed by defendant no. 3 is legal and binding on defendants 1 and 2. 8. The next contention of Mr. Misra is that the defendants have acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession. According to him, the defendant no. 3 remained in possession from 6-1-1950, the date of transfer of the suit land in his favour and thereafter the plaintiffs remained in possession after they purchased the disputed land. The application under section 25 of the Act of 1951 before the Endowment Commissioner was filed on 6-1-1962 and the defects were removed on 27-2-1962 and order was passed on 2-3-1962 to issue notice to the parties. So there was no properly constituted application before the Commissioner under section 25 till 27-2-1962 on which date the defects were removed. On 27-2-1962 the plaintiffs had perfected their title by adverse possession as their vendor, defendant no. 3, and thereafter they were in possession since 6-2-1950. But in reply Mr. Rath submitted that the application was filed on 6-1-1962 and the defect was that written processes were not filed. This cannot be construed as a defect in the application and 6-1-1962 must be taken as the date of filing of the application under section 25. 3, and thereafter they were in possession since 6-2-1950. But in reply Mr. Rath submitted that the application was filed on 6-1-1962 and the defect was that written processes were not filed. This cannot be construed as a defect in the application and 6-1-1962 must be taken as the date of filing of the application under section 25. There is considerable force in the argument of Mr. Rath. The finding of the learned appellate Court is also that the application was filed before completion of 12 years. So, on the date of application i.e. 6-1-1962, the plaintiffs had not perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession. I also accept the view of the appellate Court that they have not perfected their right, title and interest. 9. In the result, therefore, appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored. There will be no costs of this appeal. Final Result : Allowed