JUDGMENT Heard further argument from both the parties and the Second Appeal is disposed of in the following manner. 2. Plaintiffs are the appellants in the Second Appeal and the Defendants are the respondents. Plaintiffs belong to the ‘Sabut Nijoga’ and the suit was filed in the representative capacity in accordance with the provision under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. There is no dispute to the status of the plaintiffs as the representatives of their community. Their contention in the plaint is also not detrimental to any person belonging to that community. Defendant Nos. 1 to 1 (jha) are the members of the Managing Committee by the date of institution of the suit and defendant No. 2 is the administrator of Lord Sri Jagannath Tem¬ple, Puri. Plaintiffs filed the suit with the assertion that they are one type of ‘Sevayats’ of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri. Though they have not been assigned with any rites inside the temple, but their right to perform obsequies, ‘Sradha’ and ‘Sankalpa’ at Swargadwar, Swetaganga, Markanda (pond), Indradyumna (pond) and Chakratirtha is a recognized one. In other words, they have the exclusive right at Srikhetra Puri to perform the obsequies as well as Sradha, Pinda Dana and Sankalpa of the pilgrims or of the local public. Defendants, in contravention to their such rights, started issuing licence to other Brahmins for performing obsequies, Sradha and Sankalpa at Narendra Puskarini (pond) and inside the temple premises of Lord Sri Jagannath, Puri. Since such a practice adopted by the defendants is not permissible under the ‘Sashtra’ and custom and further that action of the defendants contravenes with their rights and affects their bread and butter, therefore, they prayed to injunct the defendants not to issue such licence. Alternatively they prayed that if the rights of the plaintiffs’ community is not accepted, then defendants may also be directed to grant licence for doing such acts inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini. 3. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 filed two separate written statements, but the pleas taken are consistent with each other. The sum total of the contention of the defendants is that before the Temple Administration came into existence under The Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (in short the ‘Act 1952’), practice of performance of ‘Sradha’ and ‘Paya-Sradha’ inside the temple premises were being performed so also at Narendra Puskarini on charging a licence fee. The sum total of the contention of the defendants is that before the Temple Administration came into existence under The Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (in short the ‘Act 1952’), practice of performance of ‘Sradha’ and ‘Paya-Sradha’ inside the temple premises were being performed so also at Narendra Puskarini on charging a licence fee. The Managing Com¬mittee and the Temple Administrators only continued that tradition and time-to-time revised the licence fee. Defendants stoutly denied exclusive rights of the plaintiffs’ community to have ‘Sradha’ and ‘Pinda-Dana’ by them at anywhere in Srikhetra, Puri including the temple premises and the Narendra Puskarini and also stated that one of the plaintiffs has also been granted licence for several years for performing such rites at Narendra Puskarini. On the basis of such rival pleadings, learned Subordi¬nate Judge, Puri (presently designated as Civil Judge, Senior Division) framed as many as nine issues. Amongst them, issue Nos. 7 and 9 were to the effect that : “7. Is the performance of Sankalpa, Sradha etc. prohibited in the Temple premises ? 9. Is there any prevailing customs to perform Sradha in the Temple premises of Lord Jagannath ?” 4. Both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and docu¬mentary, in support of their respective contentions. On assess¬ment of the same, learned Subordinate Judge held that plaintiffs’ right to perform obsequies, Sradha and Sankalpa at Pancha Tirtha is a recognized one and the defendants have not infringed with that right. By virtue of such a right plaintiffs have no monopoly to perform the rites and rituals of the above category anywhere at Srikhetra, Puri including the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini. In view of the evidence of D.W.6 - a Sanskrit scholar and D.W.4 - Banishree Nimain Charan Harichandan, a renowned devotee of Lord Sri Jagannath and a notable singer of the State, the defendants have proved existence of the system of grant of licence for performance of ‘Sradha’, ‘Sankalpa’ and ‘Pinda-Dana’ inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini and Exts. A series to D/3 are sufficient to prove that aspect. On recording such finding, learned Subordinate Judge, Puri dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 76 of 1982 in the Court of District Judge, Puri under Order 41, C.P.C. Learned Addl. District Judge, Puri re-numbering it as Title Appeal No. 67/76 of 1983-82, heard and disposed of that appeal on 27.08.1984. On recording such finding, learned Subordinate Judge, Puri dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 76 of 1982 in the Court of District Judge, Puri under Order 41, C.P.C. Learned Addl. District Judge, Puri re-numbering it as Title Appeal No. 67/76 of 1983-82, heard and disposed of that appeal on 27.08.1984. Appellants reiterated their contention in furtherance of their claim and the respondents supported the findings of the trial Court. On appreciation of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, learned Addl. District Judge upheld the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court stating that plaintiffs cannot have the monopoly of performing Sradha, Sankalpa and Pinda-Dana inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini of Lord Sri Jagannath. However, in paragraph-11 of the impugned judgment, learned Addl. District Judge held that, “This, however, does not mean that the temple authorities can also get the unholy rites of obsequies performed inside the temple of Lord Jagannath. Admittedly, obsequies (Pretakriyas) are never done inside the temple or at Baisi-Pahacha and they must abide by this prohibition. There is also no reason why the de¬fendants should debar the plaintiffs from getting licence like others to perform Sradha, Pinda-danas and Sankalpas for the pilgrims on the Baisi Pahachha and Narendra Puskarini although they cannot be allowed exclusive rights to do so in the temple as they do in the Pancha Tirthas. It appears that the temple author¬ities are willing to recognize equal rights of the plaintiffs with others in granting licence for these rites in the temple as they have, in fact, done by granting a similar licence to plain¬tiff No. 3 for performing Sankalpas at Narendra tank. Thus the appeal has no merit.” With such findings and conclusion, learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the appeal. 6. The Second Appeal was admitted on 03.01.1985 and the substantial question of law was formulated as follows : “Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in finding that the rites of Sradha, Sankalpa and Pindadan can also be performed on the Baisi-Pahacha of the temple of Lord Jagannath and at Narendra tank in derogation of the Sananda Exts. 2 and 3, and the record of rights prepared under the Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 ?” 7. 2 and 3, and the record of rights prepared under the Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 ?” 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued with vehe¬mence that in view of the protection of rights of the Sabut Nijoga in the record of right, in view of recognition of their right in the Sanandas - Exts. 2 and 3 and in view of the extent of jurisdiction of the temple administration under Section 21 (3) of the Act, 1952, the claim of the plaintiffs should have found favour instead of dismissing their suit. Apart from that, plaintiffs made two alternative prayer, i.e., (1) for exclusive right and (2) for permitting them to perform the rites on obtain¬ing licence. When the first prayer was accepted by the appellate Court in a modified manner by not permitting performance of obsequies inside the temple premises and also as the defendants did not dispute to the plaintiffs’ prayer for grant of licence as appreciated and approved by the appellate Court, there was no reason for the learned Addl. District Judge to dismiss the ap¬peal. Technically, he argues, the suit and the appeal should have been decreed in part. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that if the practice of Sradha and Sankalpa is permitted inside the temple premises under licence, then because of the rites recognized under Exts. 2 and 3, exclusive right should be provided to the plaintiffs for doing such act inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini. Learned counsel for the defend¬ants while not disputing to the contention that in view of what has been quoted in paragraph-11 of the judgment of the appellate Court the suit should have been decreed in part, but they oppose to the contention of the appellants that plaintiffs should get exclusive right for performing Sradha and Sankalpa inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini. 8. After considering the evidence afresh and the findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in recording the finding that plaintiffs cannot have monopoly for Sradha and Sankalpa being performed under licence inside the temple premises of Lord Sri Jagannath or Narendra Puskarini. Their right to do the priesthood for such rites Pancha Tirtha is not disputed or contested by the defend¬ants. Their right to do the priesthood for such rites Pancha Tirtha is not disputed or contested by the defend¬ants. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ claim for exclusive right to perform the aforesaid rites of Sradha and Sankalpa inside the temple premises is without any merit. That also does not run contrary to the Sananda - Exts. 2 and 3, in which plaintiffs’ right at Pancha-tirtha has only been recognized. The term ‘Srikh¬etra’ occurs therein because the Pancha-tirtha exists in Srikhe¬tra, i.e., Puri township. 9. ‘Sudhi’, ‘Sradha’, ‘Sankalpa’ and ‘Dano’ are different rites. Sudhi is the obsequies part on the death of a person. It remains confined to rites and rituals performed on the first ten days on the death of a person. Sradha, Sankalpa and Dano are performed on eleventh and twelfth day. Sradha is also performed annually or on immersion of the ‘Asthi’ (bones and ashes collected and preserved from the pyre at the burial ground). Sradha is also performed on different occasions, i.e., for fif¬teen days during Mahalaya, in the evening on Deepavali, etc. Therefore, ‘Sradha’ is a part of ‘Sudhi’, i.e., obsequies but not the vice versa. Similar is the case relating to ‘Sankalpa’ and ‘Dano’. Plaintiffs’ right to perform obsequies is recognized only at the five places in Srikhetra, i.e., Puri town and not at all places where such rites can be performed. 10. As noted earlier, plaintiffs opposed to performance of Suddhikriya (obsequies) inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini of Lord Jagannath. They do not extend any logic or reason for excluding Narendra Puskarini for performance of Suddhikriya. That being a water source, it is available for performance of Suddhikriya (obsequies). So far as the temple premises and the Baisi-Pahacha is concerned, as rightly held by learned Addl. District Judge, obsequies cannot be performed in that premises. Therefore, to that extent plaintiffs’ prayer has been entertained and accepted by the Court and, in view of that, technically the suit should have been decreed that obsequies are not to be performed inside Lord Sri Jagannath Temple. 11. While asserting their right for monopoly on Sradha, Sankalpa and Pinda-Dana even inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini, alternatively the plaintiffs prayed for grant of licence to them to perform such rites at such places. 11. While asserting their right for monopoly on Sradha, Sankalpa and Pinda-Dana even inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini, alternatively the plaintiffs prayed for grant of licence to them to perform such rites at such places. Defendants pleaded that plaintiff No. 3 has been granted licence for such performance at Narendra tank and the appellate Court, in the above quoted passage, stated that there cannot be refusal to grant of licence to persons belonging to plaintiffs’ community for doing Sradha, Sankalpa and Pinda-dana at Baisi-Pahacha and Narendra Puskarini. That finding of the appellate Court is under challenge by the respondents. Even the reasoning given by the learned Addl. District Judge appears to be sound, reasonable and logical. Therefore, to that extent also the suit should have been decreed in respect of alternative prayer. The Courts below did not consider that legal consequence on grant of the aforesaid relief in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, while considering the Second Appeal, that aspect, as prayed for, is taken care of. 12. In the result, this Court finds that the decree of the Courts below are confirmed with respect to denial to the right of monopoly/exclusiveness of the plaintiffs to do Sradha, Sankalpa and Pinda-dana at Baisi-Pahacha or at Narendra tank. But so far as the prayer for the plaintiffs not to permit performance of obsequies inside the temple premises and Narendra Puskarini are concerned, the suit is decreed by allowing the prayer for prohibiting performance of obsequies inside the temple premises of Lord Sri Jagannath, Puri. Plaintiffs’ suit is decreed to that extent. So far as the alternative prayer is concerned, as has been held by the appellate Court, if any of the persons belonging to the plaintiffs’ community applies for licence, that may be considered by the Jagannath Temple Administration in accordance with law and the parameters fixed by them before granting of licence and not to discriminate them on the ground that they belong to the Sabut Nijoga. The alternative prayer is also decreed to that extent. 13. Thus, the Second Appeal is allowed in part. Both the parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigations all through out. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale. Appeal allowed in part.