JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Agra in favour of the plaintiff-respondent here. In his plaint, the respondent stated that one Anand Swami had been the manager of a ghat on the river Jumna at Muttra, called the Dandi ghat, and asked for declaration of his title in succession to his guru, Anand Swami as the manager of the ghat. The relief he asked for in his plaint is a declaration that he was “entitled to the management and possession of the ghat called Dandi ghat together with the buildings and temple appertaining thereto.” Now as far as we can gather from the learned Vakil who represents the appellants, all that the respondent claimed was that he was entitled to squat on the ghat and provide food for any Sanyasi who might happen to come in, and also to have the ghat swept and repaired. He did not claim in any way to direct to control pilgrims visiting the ghat for bathing purposes to be entitled to receive any offerings from them. The only question he raised was his possession of the ghat and the building appertaining to it. All the evidence that was given on his behalf, amounted simply to this, that he and his alleged guru, Anand Swami, had for several years, occupied “a small room on the top of the ghat, and that they had got the ghat swept and repaired. 2. This, it might be was done by Anand Swami, as a pious and meritorious act, and not as one which conveyed to him any property in the ghat. Anyhow, the highest title put forward for Anand Swami is that he was Manager, whatever that word “manager” may be taken to mean with reference to what we have just said. The question is, is such an office as that of manager, if there be such an office, a hereditary one, passing like the office of Mahant of a Mat from Guru to Chela? We can find no authority for any such proposition. We fail to see that the respondent here has established any right, by virtue of the so called succession to a guru in the office of manager to possession over this ghat and its appurtenances. We can find no authority for any such proposition. We fail to see that the respondent here has established any right, by virtue of the so called succession to a guru in the office of manager to possession over this ghat and its appurtenances. We cannot see that he has made out any such case as would justify us in the exercise of our discretion in giving him a declaratory decree for the management and possession of this ghat and its appurtenances in his plaint the respondent has not even alleged the existence of any such rights as could be the foundation for a declaratory decree. We are not told what are the duties of the” manager” nor how that office originated, nor what are its emoluments if any. As already mentioned, it imports no control over the ghat. In the case Mama vs. Brij Mohun, [1890] I.L.R. 12 All. 587, their Lord ships of the Privy Council refused a declaratory decree in the case of a claim to a ghat, not very far from this Dandi Ghat in Muttra, because the plaintiffs had failed to give definite proof of the claim they set up. In that case the claim was a definite and intelligible one. Here it is not. Here it is vague and indefinite. We allow this appeal, and setting aside the decision of the Court below, we direct the suit to stand dismissed with costs in both Courts. But in so doing we must not be understood to say anything further than that in our opinion the plaintiff here is not entitled to the declaratory relief which was given by the Court below. We say no more.