L. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS are appellants before this Court against a reversing judgment. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is a Khuntia Sevak and plaintiff No. 2 is a Mekap Sevak of Lord Jagannath. They filed the suit in their individual and representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure representing all the Khuntias and Mekaps of Lord Jagannath. Their case is that Seva Nos. 13 and 15 of the record-of-rights prepared under Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) enumerate the seva of Khuntia and Mekaps. Seva Nos. 13 and 15 also enumerate the duties and remunerations of Khuntias and Mekaps for performance of their respective duties. The donations made by the pilgrims to the Deities for Darsan are called 'veta' and 'pindika' and offered to the Deities at places, such as, Aruna Stambha, Garuda Stambha, Bhitara Kotha, Bijaya Dwar, Ratna Simhasan, Baisi Pahacha, Mandir Bedha and other places inside the temple. Claim of the plaintiff is that Khuntias and Mekaps are entitled to a share out of this Veta and Pindima collected from pilgrims as per Seva Nos. 13 and 15. Defendants have placed sealed boxes at Lion's Gate and on the top of Baisi Pahacha in February, 1977 and January, 1979 wherein such Veta and Pindika are collected. These boxes are opened at long intervals. Plaintiffs filed application before defendant No. 2 demanding their share out of the collections made in the said boxes on the basis of entries made in Seva Nos. 13 and 15 of the record-of-rights, but defendant No. 2 refused to give any share to the plaintiffs for which the suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the collection made in the said boxes put by the defendants. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying the plaint allegations and their specific plea is that the collections made in the said boxes are neither Vetas nor Pindikas. Their case is that Vetas and Pindikas constitute the presents given to the Deities on the pedestal or before the Lords, but the suit boxes are called 'hundis' and no Veta and Pindika are collected therein and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share out of the collections made in the boxes. Their case is that Vetas and Pindikas constitute the presents given to the Deities on the pedestal or before the Lords, but the suit boxes are called 'hundis' and no Veta and Pindika are collected therein and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share out of the collections made in the boxes. ( 4 ) TAKING into consideration the respective pleas of the parties, the trial Court framed 7 issues which are as follows :"1. Is the suit maintainable?2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to file this suit?3. Is the suit barred u/s. 21 of the Jagannath Temple Act?4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a share from all the collections made by the defendant?5. Is any donation called Veta and Pindika?6. Can the plaintiffs claim remuneration without rendering any service?" (sic) ( 5 ) OUT of 7 issues, issues 4, 5 and 6 are material for the purpose of deciding the case. The trial Court answered these issues in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the collections made in the suit boxes are Pindika and further held that defendants 1 and 2 themselves have treated the collections made in the suit boxes as Veta and Pindika and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a share of it as per Seva Nos. 13 and 15 of the record-of-rights. ( 6 ) THE lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court relying on certain provisions of the Act and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share out of the collections made in the suit boxes. ( 7 ) THIS Second Appeal has been admitted on substantial grounds of law as enumerated in ground Nos. 3 to 9 of the appeal memo which run as follows :"3. For, that in view of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the learned appellate Judge acted contrary to law recording a finding that though the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the Bhet and Pindika collected in the suit boxes, according to Record of Rights, yet the right no longer subsisted on the creation of 'sri Jagannath Temple Fund' u/s. 28 (1) of the Act. In view of the Supreme Court pronouncement that the Act did not affect the rights, privileges and perquisites of the Sebakas, boxes for collection of Sri Jagannath Temple Fund cannot be installed by way of camouflage to collect what is in pith and substance 'bhet and Pindika'. Thus a substantial question of law arises. 4. For, that Sec. 28 (2) (e) prescribes that the 'fund' shall consist of any other gifts or contributions made by the public, local authorities or institutions. Gifts and contributions of the aforesaid nature are wide enough to include Bhet and Pindika. The statute does not limit the nature and character of the gifts and contributions for specific purposes like improvement of the Temple and its administration. 5. For, that the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the nature of the claim set up by the plaintiffs. According to Seba No. 20, the Daitapatis are entitled to appropriate the entire collection of Pindika, Parimanik and Dhwaja for one month from Snan Purnima till Miladri Bija. During this one month the Temple Fund and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share out of the collections. For the residual 11 months, plaintiffs are entitled to a share of one anna in the collections as Bhet and Pindika wherever they are collected beginning from Singhadwar to any place inside the Temple precincts. In view of misapprehension of the admitted case of the parties and the Record of Rights, the learned appellate Judge committed error on a substantial question of law in discharging plaintiff's case on the mistaken basis that their case is disproved by the fact that they do not get a share for the aforesaid one month. Such non-receipt of Bhet and Pindika for one month is consistent with the Record of Rights mentioned in Sebas 13, 15 and 20. 6. For, that the learned appellate Judge misapprehended as to how and when plaintiffs are entitled to a share in Bhet and Pindika and such misapprehension has resulted in arriving at an erroneous conclusion that because plaintiffs do not get a share in the collections made before Parswa Debatas like Bimala, Kamala etc. So they are not entitled to a share from the collections in the suit boxes. To clear this confusion, it is necessary to state correct facts and procedure. So they are not entitled to a share from the collections in the suit boxes. To clear this confusion, it is necessary to state correct facts and procedure. Though the plaintiffs are entitled to a share of the Bhet and Pindika collected at different places in the temple precincts, as already stated, the responsibility of installing receptacles or boxes was of the Raja of Puri when he was the Superintendent and of the Administrator after the Act came into force. Till today no boxes have been installed in the temples of Parawa Debatas like Bimala, Kamala etc. for collection of Bhet and Pindika. Offerings are made before them by the pilgrims and the same is appropriated by the Sebakas there and nothing goes even to the Temple Fund. If the authorities put boxes for such collection and make arrangement for guarding them by the Temple Police and ask the plaintiffs to guard them, the plaintiffs would be entitled to their share of collection of one anna after the small coins are taken by the particular Sebakas and the balance would go to the Temple Fund. As no provision for collection has been made by the Temple authorities at these places, plaintiffs do not get their share. Thus the learned appellate Judge committed a substantial error of law in illegally utilising this circumstance against the plaintiffs to negative their claim in the suit boxes. D. W. 1 in para 10 admitted thus :-'bhet and Pindika are being collected in the subsidiary temple also. No register is maintained for that. I cannot say when and what amount has come to Temple Fund. The case book will show that these collections have been received by the Temple office. We can produce cash books. It is not a fact that the collections made in the subsidiary temples are not Bhet and Pindika. 7. For, that similarly the learned Judge acted contrary to law in utilising non-receipt of the plaintiffs of a share from Anna Dan to deny the claim of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not to get a share out of it under Sebas 13 and 15. User of this inadmissible evidence has vitiated the conclusion of the learned Judge in negativing plaintiffs' claim in respect of the collections in the suit boxes and thus an error on a substantial question of law is involved. 8. Plaintiffs are not to get a share out of it under Sebas 13 and 15. User of this inadmissible evidence has vitiated the conclusion of the learned Judge in negativing plaintiffs' claim in respect of the collections in the suit boxes and thus an error on a substantial question of law is involved. 8. For, that the learned appellate Judge committed a substantial error of law in treating the earlier payments to the Daitapatis for one month in a year from Snan Purnima to Niladri Bije in accordance with Seba 20 as an admission wrongly or illegally made. The admitted payments establish beyond reasonable doubt that the collection in the suit boxes constitute only Bhet and Pindika. Parimanik and Dhwaja Bije to which Daitapatis are entitled are not collected in the suit boxes but are separately collected by grant of receipt by the Temple authorities and paid to Daitapatis. The exclusion of the admission as being inadmissible in evidence constitutes a substantial question of law vitiating the ultimate conclusion of the learned Judge. The learned Judge overlooked the admission of D. W. 1 in para 8 of his deposition to the effect :'the Daitas were given a share from the collections made in the suit boxes as per resolution of the Committee held on 30-6-70 (Ext. 1 ). During the Anabasar period i. e. from Snan Purnima till the Lords return to the Temple after Car festival, the Daitas perform all duties and take all income i. e. Bhet Pindika and Parimanik etc. During this period the Temple does not get anything except income from revenue and Bajebahal. The Temple gets 20% towards establishment charge from out of the collections from the Daitas. The amounts paid to Daitas from the collections from the suit boxes are not paid as Bhet or Pindika but on administrative grounds. 'd. W. 1 does not explain the administrative ground as the same is false. 9. For, that the learned Judge should not have drawn adverse inference against the plaintiffs for they are not filing an appeal against the order Ext. 2 of the Administrator negativing their claim. Under S. 24 (6) of the Act, plaintiffs have a right to sue and it was wholly unnecessary to file an appeal. " ( 8 ) SHRI R. K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for appellants, submits that as per entries in respect of Seva Nos. 2 of the Administrator negativing their claim. Under S. 24 (6) of the Act, plaintiffs have a right to sue and it was wholly unnecessary to file an appeal. " ( 8 ) SHRI R. K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for appellants, submits that as per entries in respect of Seva Nos. 13 and 15 of the record-of-rights REFERRED TO in the judgment, the plaintiffs are entitled to a share out of offerings made to the Deities. The learned Counsel further submits that the offerings made by the pilgrims to Lord Jagannath and collected in the boxes put by the defendants are nothing else but Veta and Pindika. It is also submitted that under Seva Nos. 13 and 15 Veta and Pindika are collected from pilgrims at any place inside the temple including the Lions Gate. Reference has been made to Exts. 6, 7, 11 and 12 and it is submitted that the Pindika Register shows that the collections made in the suit boxes have been entered in the register under the heading Pindika and Veti and therefore, it is submitted on the basis of the said documents that defendants cannot take a different stand and claim that the collections made in the suit boxes are not Veta or Pindika. Defendants 1 and 2 having paid a share out of the collections made in the boxes to Daitapati and Palia, plaintiffs cannot be deprived of their shares. ( 9 ) SHRI S. Misra-2, the learned Counsel appearing for appellants, submits that as per entries in respect of Seva Nos. 13 and 15 of the record-of-rights REFERRED TO in the judgment, the plaintiffs are entitled to a share out of offerings made to the Deities. The learned Counsel further submits that the offerings made by the pilgrims to Lord Jagannath and collected in the boxes put by the defendants are nothing else but Veta and Pindika. It is also submitted that under Seva Nos. 13 and 15 Veta and Pindika are collected from pilgrims at any place inside the temple including the Lions Gate. Reference has been made to Exts. It is also submitted that under Seva Nos. 13 and 15 Veta and Pindika are collected from pilgrims at any place inside the temple including the Lions Gate. Reference has been made to Exts. 6, 7, 11 and 12 and it is submitted that the Pindika Register shows that the collections made in the suit boxes have been entered in the register under the heading Pindika and Veti and therefore, it is submitted on the basis of the said documents that defendants cannot take a different stand and claim that the collections made in the suit boxes are not Veta or Pindika. Defendants 1 and 2 having paid a share out of the collections made in the boxes to Daitapati and Palia plaintiffs cannot be deprived of their shares. 9a. Shri S. Misra-2, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to different provisions of the Act and submits that Section 28 (1) of the Act makes it clear that gifts and contributions made to the Shri Jagannath Temple Fund by the public are not offerings to the Deities. The purposes for which this Fund has been created as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act make it clear that no part of the Fund can be paid to Khuntia Sevakas or the Mekap Sevaks on the basis of the record-of-rights, and the Fund has been created for the purposes as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 28. It will be illegal on the part of the Temple authorities and a clear violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act to give a share out of this Fund to them on the basis of their claim on record-of-rights. He also submitted that the constitutional validity of certain provisions contained in the Act were challenged before this Court and the writ application was allowed. The Temple Administration challenged the said judgment before the Apex Court and the judgment of this Court was set aside by the Apex Court. The said judgment of the Apex Court has been reported in (1998) 86 CLT 1 : ( AIR 1997 SC 3839 ), Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia. The Temple Administration challenged the said judgment before the Apex Court and the judgment of this Court was set aside by the Apex Court. The said judgment of the Apex Court has been reported in (1998) 86 CLT 1 : ( AIR 1997 SC 3839 ), Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia. Relying on the said decision of the Apex Court, Shri Misra submits that the points raised in this Second Appeal having already been answered in the said judgment by the Apex Court, the plaintiffs have no manner of right to claim a share out of the collections made in the suit boxes. ( 10 ) FROM the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, the questions that require determination are as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any share out of the collections made in the boxes put by the defendants on the basis of entries made in the record-of-rights and as to whether collections made in the suit boxes are Veta and Pindika. Shri Mohapatra, learned Counsel for appellants, submits that earlier whatever were donated by pilgrims to the Deities anywhere inside the Temple were known as Veta and Pindika and the same were being collected in Thalis, Jharis and Parkhas. Subsequently the Temple Administration changed the receptacle and put boxes for its collection inside Bhitara and Bahar Kotha and at other places for which Khuntias and Mekaps objected and filed a suit and the matter came up to this Court. Relying upon Ext. 10, judgment delivered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1967, Shri Mohapatra contends that the Temple Administration has the power to change the receptacles and put up boxes for such collection but the amount collected in the suit boxes are Pindika and Veta and therefore, plaintiffs were getting their due shares. Reference has also been made by Shri Mohapatra to Pindika Register and it is submitted that collections made in the suit boxes have been treated as Veta and Pindika. On the other hand, Shri Misra appearing for the respondents, submits that the plaintiffs are not performing any duty to guard the suit boxes and as such, are not entitled to any share out of collections made therein. On the other hand, Shri Misra appearing for the respondents, submits that the plaintiffs are not performing any duty to guard the suit boxes and as such, are not entitled to any share out of collections made therein. The Apex Court in the said decision cited above has taken note of all these aspects and have observed as follows (at Page 3848 of AIR) :"25. The first question that falls for determination in this case is whether the right of the Sevaks to get a share out of the Veta and Pindika as recognised in the Record of Rights is a religious right. The question was specifically gone into in the case of Bairagi Mekep v. Shri Jagannath Temple Management Committee, AIR 1972 Orissa 10. The High Court in that case held that the right to get a share in the collection is a secular right. The religious ceremony ends when the offerings are made by the devotees. The collection of the offerings and distribution of those offerings among various groups of Sevaks and other servants were purely secular activities. The Special Leave Petition against this judgment of the High Court was dismissed. But in the judgment under appeal, a contrary view has been taken. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents that they were not parties to the first case. Moreover, the question in this case is whether any religious right of the Sevaks was interfered with by the new provisions of the Act introduced in 1983 whereby Hundis were placed at different places of the Temple and a declaration was made that Sevaks will not be entitled to any portion of the monies given by way of offerings in the Hundis. 26. A copy of the Record of Rights pertaining to Palia Mekaps has been handed up in Court. The Record of Rights starts with the recital under the heading "record OF RIGHTS - SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE PURI - Record of Rights and Duties of various classes of Sevaks and others employed for or connected with Seva-Puja of the Temple. " The very heading indicates that the Record of Rights not only records the rights but also the duties of various classes of Sevaks and other employed or connected with Seva Puja in the Temple. But all these duties are not religious rites. " The very heading indicates that the Record of Rights not only records the rights but also the duties of various classes of Sevaks and other employed or connected with Seva Puja in the Temple. But all these duties are not religious rites. The Watchman (Palia Mekap) has to guard the doors of the Temple till the arrival of the next Watchman. The Watchman has also to verify in the morning after opening the doors of the Sanctum Sanctorum whether certain things are in order. He has also to check whether the garments of the Deities are in order or not. This sort of duty is an usual duty of a Watchman or Keeper of the place and is of purely secular nature. It has been noted earlier in this judgment how the offerings made by the devotees are to be guarded and collected in Gadus (jugs) by the Sevaks. The Sevaks have to do these jobs because they have been appointed for this purpose. For doing their work, they may be paid salaries. They may also be remunerated by paying a portion of the offerings collected by them. Cleaning of the Temple, including the collection of monies lying scattered all over the Temple floor and also from the throne cannot be treated as performance of any religious rite. On the contrary, it is an act of pure and simple collection of money for which a prescribed portion is given to those who collect the money. We do not see it as anything but a way of remunerating the Sevaks for the jobs done. The Sevaks cannot be said to be professing, practising or propagating religion by these acts of collection of money for remuneration. xx xx xx34. All these provisions go to show that the Sevaks are appointed by the Administrator and have to do the jobs assigned to them by the Administrator. The Administrator has the power to take disciplinary proceedings against them whenever necessary. The Administrator has also been empowered to prepare a schedule of the employees of the temple and fix their salaries etc. These provisions again go to show that the sevaks are essential servants of the temple. The status of the sevaks cannot by any means be equated with that of a Mahant or Shebait. The sevaks do not have any interest in the properties of the temple which they may have to guard. These provisions again go to show that the sevaks are essential servants of the temple. The status of the sevaks cannot by any means be equated with that of a Mahant or Shebait. The sevaks do not have any interest in the properties of the temple which they may have to guard. They have certain duties during the Seva-puja but they are not allowed to touch the Deities. They have to clean the throne keeping their feet at the edge of the throne. They have to collect whatever Veta Pindika is thrown on the throne standing on the ground stretching their hands as far as they reach. They bring golden ornaments from the Bhandar Mekaps for use in the three Dhupas and give them to the puja panda and after the puja they take back the ornaments to deposit the same in the Bhandar daily. They also bring the sandal paste from the store- house and give the same to the three pandas. After the ritual is over, they deposit the silver plate in the Bhandar. They also bring camphor for light and remain present at the time of closure of the doors and sleep near the doors. These duties performed by the sevaks are connected with Seva-puja but the actual seva-puja is not done by the sevaks. The collection of offerings including money lying scattered inside the temple and also on the throne of the deities have nothing to do with the Seva-puja. These duties are performed after the Seva-puja is completed. The collection of monies and other offerings inside the temple cannot be treated as a practice of religion by the sevaks. They were simply discharging their duties assigned to them for remuneration. Every activity inside the temple cannot be regarded as a religious practice. Moreover, sub-Clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution has specifically reserved the rights of the State for making any law 'regulating or restricting economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice'. If there is any financial or economic activity connected with religious practice, the State can make law regulating such activities even though the activity may be associated with religious practice. In the instant case, we are of the view that the various duties assigned to the sevaks are nothing but secular activities, whether associated with religious practice or not. If there is any financial or economic activity connected with religious practice, the State can make law regulating such activities even though the activity may be associated with religious practice. In the instant case, we are of the view that the various duties assigned to the sevaks are nothing but secular activities, whether associated with religious practice or not. Moreover, the State Legislature has, in any event power to frame laws for regulating collection and utilisation of offerings of monies made inside the temple by the devotees. xx xx xx38. In the instant case, we see no reason why the Government cannot frame rules regulating the manner of payment of the sevaks. They may be paid by giving them a percentage of the total collections made by them inside the temple. They may also be remunerated in some other way. But the sevaks cannot, as a matter of right, religious or temporal, claim that the entire offerings made in the temple whether in the hundis or in the closed receptacles or anywhere else must be taken into account for fixing the commission payable to them. " ( 11 ) AS is evident from the discussions made in the judgment cited above, the Apex Court has answered both the questions raised by the learned counsel for appellants'. So far as entries in the Record of Rights are concerned, the Apex Court has already held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share out of the same only on the basis of the entries made in the Record of Rights. The other point raised by Shri Mohapatra that Daitapatis were paid compensation from out of the collections made in the suit boxes, had also been answered by the Apex Court and it was held that any payment made by mistake cannot confer a right on Daitapatis to claim a share out of the collections made in the boxes. ( 12 ) IN view of the observations made by the Apex Court, as REFERRED TO above, as well as taking into consideration Section 28 of the Act, I am of the view that plaintiffs have failed to establish their claim and as such, I do not find any merit in this Second Appeal. In view of discussions made above, the Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.