Mullick, J.:— The plaintiffs style themselves as Puja Pandas of the temple of deity named Lingaraj Mahaprabhu at Bhubaneshwar. The principal defendants style themselves as the Suar Pandas of the same temple. It is admitted by both, parties that when a certain kind of offering called chhatrabhog is made by a pilgrim to the God it is the custom for the Suar Pandas to keep one-fourth for labour spent by them in cooking the food. The remainder of the cooked food is then handed to the Puja Pandas, who consecrate the same by means of incantations and ceremonies and return it to the pilgrim. The plaintiffs claim that out of the one-fourth share kept by Suar Pandas they, the plaintiffs, are entitled to keep one-fourth by way of remuneration for their labour, that is to say, the plaintiffs claim to keep 1/16th of the total offering of every pilgrim who offers chhatrabhog. There is another kind of offering called dalabhog, in respect of which a similar prayer is made. In the present suit the plaintiffs ask for the following reliefs: (i) That it may be declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the 1/16th share of the chhabhog and dalabhog, the said share being commonly called chanda. (ii) That it may be declared that the principal defendants 1 to 9 have no right to offer daladhog. (iii) That a perpetual injunction may be issued restraining defendants 1, to 9 from taking chanda due to the plaintiffs. (iv) That a decree may be passed awarding the plaintiffs damages to the extent of Rs. 2,400.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge made a declaration that defendants 1 to 9 have no right to offer dalabhog, but he did not expressly declare that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim 1/16th in respect of this kind of offering. Rut in regard to chhatrabhog the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim 1/16th share on account of chanda. He declined to grant the remaining prayers of the plaintiffs. On appeal the District Judge made an express declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/16th share as chanda in respect of dalabhog, but in other respects he affirmed the Subordinate Judge's decree. The present second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs, and the only question before us is whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to claim 1/16th of the chhatrabhog by way of chanda. The plaintiffs base their case, firstly, upon the ancient Shastras and secondly, on custom. Both Courts have found that the alleged custom has not been proved. The learned vakil for the appellants admits that he cannot go behind this finding and, therefore, has argued his case only on the basis of the Shastras. He contends that although the plaintiffs have failed to prove the custom alleged by them, still they are entitled to a decree if they can prove that the Shastras recognize their right. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the various texts upon which the parties rely.

3. Both parties admit that Lingaraj Mahaprabhu is one of the manifestations of Siva; that the ordinary pilgrim is not permitted to partake of the bhog or offering made to an image representing a manifestation of Siva if that manifestation is attended by an Upadevata or attendant deity named Chanda or Chandeshwar. According to Hindu mythology, Siva is in certain cases attended by Chandeswar who is located in the north-east corner of the temple. After the bhog is offered to Siva 1/16th of the shown is shown to Chandeshawar, but no part of that bhog can be eaten by any one except a Siva Bhakta or votary of Siva. When Siva appears in the form of a Linga he may do so either as a Ban Linga, or a Linga made of jewels, copper, silver, gold iron; and in these cases “the bhog can be partaken by all with devotion.” The Swayambhu Siva is the Siva who is self-existent, whose origin cannot be tracedt, who is unborn and eternal. It is admitted that he is never accompanied by Chandeshwar. It is the case of the defendants that the term chanda is derived from the worship of Chandeshwar and that where there exists such worship, it is the right of the Puja Panda to claim 1/16th of chhatrabhog; where there is no such worship the Puja Panda has no such right. The lower Courts have found that it is the custom of all classes of pilgrims, whether special votaries of Siva or not, to at the chhatrabhog offered to-Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar, they find that there can be no worship of Chandeshwar at this temple and it follows, therefore, that there can be no chanda for the plaintiffs in respect of chhatrabhog. The Courts arrive at the same result by another process. They find that Lingaraj, is a Swayambhu Siva and that a Swayambhu Siva according to the Hindu Shastras is not attended by Chandeswar. Therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to chanda. If, therefore that defendants can establish that Lingaraj at Bhubaneshwar is Swayambhu Siva, the plaintiffs' claim in respect of chhatrabhog must fail. Ex. E, a text from Lingaraj Puja Paddhati, runs as follows:

Out of no portion of the food already offered should offering be made to Chandeswar. It is said in the Shaivagam ‘in the case of Ban Linga Swayambhu Linga made of metal, and in the case of all images, Chanda has no right,’ From, this text Chandra Rudra has no right in connection with the worship of the great Swayambhu Lingaraj. It should simply be offered as to Krishna.”

4. This text shows that Lingaraj is a Swayambhu Siva. Again, Ex. G is a text from, the Ekambra Puran. I consider it established that Ekambra has been identified with Bhubaneshwar. Apparently the name owes its origin to the fact that a Bhubaneshwar there was only one mango tree, and the texts cited both by the plaintiffs and the defendants show that the temple of Lingaraj at Ekambra is the temple of Lingaraj at Bhubaneshwar. Ex. G runs as follows:

“The God who gives protection to those who are worthy of it, the God who is the lord of millions of Lingas, who is without end, whose virtues have no end, who knows no decline or destruction, who is Swayambhu, peace-giver, supreme, grantor of boons and auspicious, in whom all conceptions meet. Who does not worship, such a God.”

5. This text again, therefore, describes Lingaraj as Swayambhu. I next refer to an extract from Ex. 21, Swarnadri Mahodaya the whole of which is devoted to the worship of Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. This text runs as follows.

“I am describing a large Linga who is giver of all fruition, a chief God in the north-east and near to Bhubanesha, who being round and very beautiful and having the form of a laddu, Brahma in ancient time referred to under the appellation of Laddukeswar. Oh, good Bhrahmans, very near him is Bhubanesh, himself who is blessed above the blessed, worshipable, giver of all desires, perfect, chief Linga, beautiful, Swayambhu and remover of all sins. Thereafter touching seeing and bowing to Sakreshwar Linga a man is freed from all sins and attains the region of Indra. This Sakreshwar has been of yora worshipped by Sakra who is very powerful, bright and giver of boons to the faithful. The above is the description of the virtues of the Lingas inside the enclosure walls.”

6. The learned vakil for the appellants contends that the translation submitted by the learned vakil for the respondents is incorrect and that the correct translation of the words,

Tatra sannihita sakhyat

is “in him directly present.” He contends that the passage means that in Laddukeshwar Bhubanesha is directly present, and that the term Swayambhu applies not to Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar but to Laddukeshwar. In my opinion the translatian given by the learned vakil for the respondents is the most suitable to the context. I observe also that neither before the learned Subordinate Judge nor before the learned District Judge was objection taken to this interpretation of the text. On the contrary, the learned Subordinate Judge states in his judgment that the texts are in simple Sanskrit and were understood by the vakils of both aides. If there had been any doubt as to whether the term Swayambhu was or was not applicable to Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar, I am certain that the interpretation now given by Mr. Mitter on behalf of the appellants would have been mentioned either before the Subordinate Judge or the District Judge. Then the appellants rely upon another text in the Siva Mahapuran for the purpose of showing that Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar is not a Swayambhu. This text runs as follows:

“Somenath is in Sourashtra, Mulikarjuna in Sir Saila, Mahakal in Ojein, Chaureshwar in Ongkar, Kedar in the Himalayas, Vimasankar in Dakini, Bishweshar in Benares, Triambaka on the bank of the Goutami. Baidyanath in Chitabhumi, Nagesh in Dwarka forest, Ramesh in Setabandha and Ghuahmesha in Sibalaya. These are the twelve avatars of Swayambu. The sight and touch of these confer all happiness on men.”

7. It is contended that a Swayambhu Siva, belng self-existent and unborn, must be synonymous with an avatar of Siva, and as Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar is not included in the above list of avatars he cannot be Swayambhu. I am not impressed with this argument. I do not believe that Swayambhu is synonymous with avatar. I prefer the interpretation that Swayambhu, which means self-existing, is capable of application to a Siva, the origin of which is lost in antiquity, in contradistinction to a linga which was established by some known person. Moreover, if the interpretation that there can be no Swayambhu Sivas except these twelve avatars be accepted, then the interpretation given by Dr. Mitter to the text regarding Laddukeshwar must necessarily be wrong; for according to him, Laddukeshwar is a Swayambhu and admittedly Laddukeshwar is not mentioned at all in the list of twelve avatars. I agree therefore with the Courts below that Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar is a Swayambhu, and if that is so, then the plaintiffs claim must fail. The texts above cited also show that where the general public is permitted to partake of the bhog there can be no Chanda. It is found as a fact that the general public at the temple of Lingaraj is permitted to partake of the bhog.

8. Therefore also the plaintiffs' claim must fail. But Dr. Mitter further contends that the right of the plaintiffs to chanda in chhatrabhog has no connexion with the worship of Chanda, and that it is a mere coincidence that the share prescribed in the Lingaraj Siva Paja and the Sive Chintamani as due to Chanda is identical with the share prescribed by the Niladri Mahodaya as the share of the Pujaka or Acharya. He contends that the Niladri Mahodaya is authority for the proposition that in respect of all nirmalya offerings made to Siva, the Pujaka, i.e the priest, is entitled to 1/10th or 1/16th. The reply to this is that the Niladri Mahodaya is not an authority which applies to the temples at Bhubaneshwar. It is a book compiled for the worship of the idols at Puri and the invocation:

“Oh King, you should always satisfy the Pajaka with 1/10th or 1/16th of the offering of the supporter of the world”

is applicable only to the Raja of Puri. The argument that the text is of general application to all Hindus in India does not commend itself to me. If therefore this text be rejected as not being applicable, the defendants' case that the grant of Chanda is always co-existent with the worship of Chanda remains unrebutted.

9. I therefore think that on a consideration of the text the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim Chanda in respect of chhatrabhog at the temple of Lingaraj of Bhubaneshwar. Moreover, their failure to establish that their claim is prescribed by custom tends to corroborate the interpretation which the defendants seek to place upon the Shastras. The result therefore is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

10. Atkinson, J.:— I concur.

V.S/R.K

11. Appeal dismissed.