JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for a declaration, injunction and possession. 2. The suit related to some bhumidhari plots as well as a house. The plaintiff alleged that these properties were acquired by him and one Ratan Das jointly. After the death of Ratan Das the plaintiff became the sole owner. The plaintiff's alternative case was that he was in cultivators possession of the bhumidhari plots in 1359 Fasli and, therefore, he became its adhivasi and thereafter sirdar. He also paid ten times the rent and a bhumidhari sanad was obtained in respect of the plots though in the name of Ratan Das alone. The plain-tiff, therefore, became the sole bhumidhar. The plaintiff claimed title to the house by adverse possession. The third ground upon which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of these properties was that he was the chela of Ratan Das. According to the prevailing custom the property passed from guru to chela. Consequently the plaintiff became the owner on the death of his guru Ratan Das. The defendants alleged to have obtained a will from Ratan Das on 10th November, 1955, a fortnight before the death of Ratan Das on 25th November, 1955. Ratan Das was not in a sound dis-posing mind. The will was obtained by exercise of fraud and undue influence. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted a declaration that the will was fictitious, ineffective and void. He prayed for possession over the bhumidhari plots and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the house. 3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alone contested the suit. They pleaded that the plaintiff was not the chela of Ratan Das. The properties in suit had been acquired by the ancestors of the defendants but they had been given to Ratan Das. Ratan Das had executed a will in favour of the defendants of his volition and the same was valid and operative. 4. The trial court held that the proper-ties in dispute were endowed properties for the sustenance of Baba Ratan Das and other Babas who remained with him. They would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Law. The plaintiff had proved that he was the chela of Ratan Das. He, therefore, inherited the properties on the death of Ratan Das. The trial court held that the proper-ties in dispute were endowed properties for the sustenance of Baba Ratan Das and other Babas who remained with him. They would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Law. The plaintiff had proved that he was the chela of Ratan Das. He, therefore, inherited the properties on the death of Ratan Das. The will was held to have been fraudulently obtained when Ratan Das was not in a sound disposing mind. It was invalid. The suit was, therefore, decreed for the declaration and injunction as well as possession. 5. The defendants went up in appeal. The lower appellate court upheld the decree in relation to the house but dismissed the suit in respect of the bhumidhari plots. It was held that the plaintiff was the chela of Baba Ratan Das. The alleged will was not the last testament of a free and capable testator and was invalid. The plaintiff was in possession of the house but not of the bhumidhari plots. Ratan Das did not belong to any religious order. The bhumidhari plots retained their secular character. Succession to that would be governed by the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act. Under it a chela has not been recognised to be an heir. The plaintiff, therefore, has no title or right to the bhumidhari plots. 6. The plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal. His grievance is that the suit ought to have been decreed for possession of the bhumidhari plots. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the bhumidhari plots. The lower appellate court has further found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of these plots for any length of time in his own rights. The suit, therefore, could not be decreed on the basis of any prior possessory title. 7. The lower appellate court appears to have found that Baba Ratan Das did not belong to any religious sect or order. He had not left his secular status by becoming any kind of religious personality. It was observed :- "...... there is no evidence worth the name on the record to show that Baba Ratan Das was the Mahant of any particular Gaddi or that he was a Shivait or Pujari. He had not left his secular status by becoming any kind of religious personality. It was observed :- "...... there is no evidence worth the name on the record to show that Baba Ratan Das was the Mahant of any particular Gaddi or that he was a Shivait or Pujari. There is nothing on the record to show that he represented any particular sect or order among the Sadhus and it is too much to presume that this property was acquired by him in any such capacity. There does not appear to be any deity of which he was the Pujari and to which this property might have been appurtenant. Baba Ratan Das was a Jatav and it is not known what sort of Sadhu he was. There fore, these considerations should not be given any importance and the position clearly is that this property retained its character of secular property in the hands of Baba Ratan Das and it would devolve according to the general law of the land, i.e. the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Chela is not an heir and the plaintiff cannot get the bhumidhari property." 8. It is to be remembered that the plaintiff had pleaded that according to the prevailing custom the property passed from Guru to Chela. Evidently no such custom has been established. The special rules of Hindu law in relation to succession to persons belonging to religious orders or sects would not be attracted to the plaintiff. Baba Ratan Das has not been proved to have a religious status so as to be outside the normal rule of succession. It has further been found that the property in dispute was not acquired by him in the capacity of a Sabhu and that it retained its secular character. Thus, neither. Baba Ratan Das nor the bhumidhari plots ever lost their secular character. Ratan Das would, therefore, be like any other bhumidhar. Succession to bhumidhari plots would be governed by Section 171 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under it the property passes to the various mentioned relations. The first group of relations is the male leneal descendants. It was argued by Mr. Ratan Das would, therefore, be like any other bhumidhar. Succession to bhumidhari plots would be governed by Section 171 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under it the property passes to the various mentioned relations. The first group of relations is the male leneal descendants. It was argued by Mr. A. P. Pande, appearing for the appellant, that a Chela occupies, in the eye of law, the status of a son and so he should be deemed to be a male lineal descendant. Learned counsel relied upon the observations of the Privy Council in Pt. Parma Nand v. Nihal Chand, 42 CWN 1013 (1016). In that case it was found that Narain Das, who was the Mahant of an institution known as "Baghichi Thakaran" or Gurdwara Baghichi, which was alleged to be a public endowment for religious and charitable purposes, belonged to an ascetic order called Udasi. It was found that when a person enters the Udasi Order, he severs his connection with the members of his natural family. Neither he nor his natural relative can succeed to the property held by the other. In this context it was observed that there is, however, no reason for holding that an Udasi cannot acquire a property with his own money or by his own exertions. It was then observed :- "If he does acquire private property, it cannot be inherited by his natural relatives, but passes on his death to his spiritual heir including his chela who is recognised as his spiritual son." 9. It is apparent that the descent of property from a Guru to his Chela is based upon the recognition of a Chela of a spiritual son and so a spiritual heir. But this is a special rule applicable to persons who belong t.) religious orders or sects in which such precepts are customary. The rule that a Chela is a spiritual son will not be applicable to any ordinary Hindu who has retained his secular character, that is to say who is not recognised to be entitled to sever all his connection with the members of his natural family. The principle that a Chela of any and every Hindu would be entitled to succeed as such, if accepted, would lead to devastating consequences. The principle that a Chela of any and every Hindu would be entitled to succeed as such, if accepted, would lead to devastating consequences. The natural born sons under the rules would be entitled to succeed as heirs, but a Chela would also claim a competing right to succeed. The very basis for this special rule of recognising a Chela as a spiritual son is based upon the fact that the person on entering a religious order is deemed to have severed all connections with the members of his natural mamily. In the absence of any such severance, the Chela could not be recognised to have any status in matters of succession to secular property. I am, therefore, unable to hold that the plaintiff could be characterised as the male lineal descendant of Baba Ratan Das merely because he was his Chela. Baba Ratan Das not being a member of any religious or spiritual order, his Chela would not have any spiritual character. He would be, if I may use the expression, merely a secular Chela. He would have no better status at law than any other assistant or servant. The phrase "male lineal descendant" occurring in Section 171 could not be extended to include such a Chela or servant. The plaintiff did not in law inherit the Bhumidhari plots of Baba Ratan Das. 10. In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.