JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against reversing judgment. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land belonged to the deities, Sri Sri Taratarini Bije Raipur and Sri Sri Sundarmadhaba Bije Purushottampur. Plaintiff's family were in cultivating possession of the suit land since time immemorial in lieu of their seva puja and niti kranti. After coming into operation of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the kissam of the suit land was changed to raiyati. Plaintiffs’ family remained in possession of the suit land on payment of share of crops. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had filed an application under Sec. 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act being O.L.R. Case No. 2437/76 for a declaration of the lands of the deity non-resumable and occupancy right. Since the suit property had been declared as trustee estate, the application was not allowed. The defendants having no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land created disturbances in their peaceful possession. A proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated against defendant no. 1. The same was dropped on 31.03.1992 by the Executive Magistrate with a finding that the suit lands were in joint cultivation of both the parties. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that their father was in possession of the suit land. After his death, defendant no. 1 was in possession of the suit land along with plaintiff no. 1. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the suit land. Defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. Non-joinder of the deities as parties will not affect the suit in any manner. Held so, it decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved, the defendants filed T.A. No. 01 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chatrapur. Learned appellate court came to hold that the deities are necessary parties to the suit. Non-joinder of the deities as parties will not affect the suit in any manner. Held so, it decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved, the defendants filed T.A. No. 01 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chatrapur. Learned appellate court came to hold that the deities are necessary parties to the suit. Since they are not parties to the suit, the suit is not maintainable. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff's suit is maintainable as against the defendant without impleading the deity, the true owner, as a party to the suit? (2) Whether the appellate court committed illegality by not deciding the appeal on all relevant issues?” 6. Heard Mr. H.K. Behera, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. Behera, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs do not claim any relief against a deity. They are in cultivating possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land. Thus the deity is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. 8. The submission of Mr. Behera, learned advocate for the appellants is difficult to fathom. Admittedly, the property belonged to the deity, Sri Sri Taratarini Bije Raipur and Sri Sri Sundarmadhaba Bije Purushottampur. Deity is a perpetual minor. The suit has been instituted claiming possession and title over the land of the deity. Deity is a necessary party to the suit. In the absence of the deity, the suit is not maintainable. Since the substantial question of law enumerated in ground no. 1 has been answered against the plaintiffs, the second substantial question of law does not require consideration. 9. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.