JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - This is plaintiffs' appeal. 2. The following pedigree serves to elucidate the relevant facts of the case : 3. Sri Ram Chandra Raghunathji is a deity installed in a temple situate in Mohalla Bajaria, Bareilly. According to the plaintiffs the deity was installed over a century ago. Smt. Ramdei (widow of Nandram) dedicated nine biswas of zamindari property to the deity. Later, under a registered waqfnama dated April 14, 1866 she dedicated remaining one biswa besides other properties to the deity. Maharaj Dharnidhar was made the Sarvarakar. It was also provided that subsequent to Maharaj Dharnidhar: the Mahant will he "Virakt Jeehaq". 4. It is not in dispute that Maharaj Dharnidhar nominated his Chela namely, Girdhar Ramanujdas as the Sarvarakar under the will dated 22-1-1886 (Ex. 2). Girdhar Ramanujdas in his turn nominated his Chela Basudeo Ramanujdas in the will dated 2-2-25/ 22-2-31 (Ex. 6/7). Basudeo Ramanujdas died on Mar. 24, 1951. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted far back on Oct. 20, 1955 by Ram Bharosey Lal (since dead) contending that on the death of Basudeo Ramanujdas intestate, he was the Sarvarkar being of the family of the founders. Baradraj the defendant proclaimed himself as the Chela of Basudeo Ramanujdas and interfered with his possession. He also applied for mutation in his name. The relief sought is perpetual injunction and in the alternative, possession over the house and two shops pertaining to the temple. 5. The defendant resisted the suit. He pleaded that Basudeo Ramanujdas had made him chela on Ram Naumi, 1946. Upon the death of the Guru, he succeeded him formally on May II 1951 at a ceremony held for the purpose. He is 'Virakt Jeehaq'. Ever since he has been the Sarvarakar and in management of the properties as such. It is refuted that Ram Bharosey Lal is Sarvarakar or that he has had any interest. It is also claimed by the defendant that he is Vaishnav of Ramanuj Sampradaya and is named Baradraj Ramanujdas. 6. Learned Civil Judge, treated 'Virakt' as synonymous with a 'Sanyasi . It was found that certain ceremonies did take place on Ram Naumi, 1946. as contended by the defendant when he was made a Chela by Basudeo Ramanujdas. But since the defendant did not get into the cult of Sanyasis, he could not claim to be Sarvarakar under the Waqfnama D/- 14-4-1866. It was found that certain ceremonies did take place on Ram Naumi, 1946. as contended by the defendant when he was made a Chela by Basudeo Ramanujdas. But since the defendant did not get into the cult of Sanyasis, he could not claim to be Sarvarakar under the Waqfnama D/- 14-4-1866. The ceremony of 'gaddi nashini' was also performed, it was held, on May 11, 1951 and the defendant was in possession. On these findings the suit was decreed for perpetual injunction and possession on November 4, 1957. 7. The lower appellate court expressed the view that the defendant did not perform his own Shradha and Braja Homa and hence he could not claim to be entitled as 'Virakt' or Sarvarakar. The appeal of the defendant was however allowed and the suit dismissed on the basis that there had been adjudication in the meanwhile by the consolidation authorities and S. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was invoked for this purpose. 8. Aggrieved against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs filed this second appeal. Cross-objection has been filed for the defendant assailing the finding with regard to the defendant being held to be not the Sarvarakar. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the appeal and the cross-objection were heard together. 9. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent raised a preliminary objection that the suit ought to have been brought under S. 92 of the Civil P. C. and that it could not be in the court of the Munsif. Apart from the fact that there is no such plea raised in defence nor an issue framed, the contention is untenable upon merit. As specified above, the suit was by Ram Bharosey Lal claiming to be the Sarvarakar of the deity on the basis of being a member of the founder's family and it is directed against an individual alleged to be an importer intending to trespass over part of the trust property. The relief claimed is injunction and possession in the alternative. As specified above, the suit was by Ram Bharosey Lal claiming to be the Sarvarakar of the deity on the basis of being a member of the founder's family and it is directed against an individual alleged to be an importer intending to trespass over part of the trust property. The relief claimed is injunction and possession in the alternative. The law is settled that in order to bring a case within the purview of S. 92 the suit must be a representative one, brought for the benefit of the public and to enforce a public right in respect of an express or constructive trust upon a cause of action alleging a breach of such trust or necessity for directions as to its administration, against a trustee de jure or de son tort of such trust." But if the suit is between persons who individually, claim a right to succeed to the office of trustee, S. 92 of the Civil P. C. has no application. The right here set up is a personal right to act in a particular office." (See Puttu Lal v. M. Daya Nand, AIR 1922 All 499 , Muhammad Abdul Majid Khan v. Ahmed Said Khan, (1913) ILR 35 All 459). In Mt. Shah Jahan Begum v. Ibn Ali, AIR 1945 All 69 it was held that S. 92 is properly a representative suit filed in the interest of the public or the section of the public who are interested in the proper administration of the trust and that this does not cover a private dispute between one of the beneficiaries and the trust through its mutwalli. A suit under S. 92 is a suit of a special nature. "Such suit can proceed only on the allegation that there is a breach of such trust or that directions from the court are necessary for the administration thereof, and it must pray for one or other of the reliefs that are specifically mentioned in the section". (vide Pragadasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Ishwarlal Bhai Narsibhai, AIR 1952 SC 143 . In Harendra Nath Bhattacharya v. Kaliram Das, AIR 1972 SC 246 it was likewise laid that a suit under S. 92 can proceed only on the allegation that there is a breach of public trust of a religious or charitable character or that the directions from the court are necessary for the administration of the trust. In Harendra Nath Bhattacharya v. Kaliram Das, AIR 1972 SC 246 it was likewise laid that a suit under S. 92 can proceed only on the allegation that there is a breach of public trust of a religious or charitable character or that the directions from the court are necessary for the administration of the trust. None of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the instant case falls within the section nor is the cause of action founded on the basis referable to S. 92. The preliminary objection raised for the respondent, therefore, cannot prevail. 10. The appellant's learned counsel urged that the lower appellate court w rong1y applied S. 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 to the facts of this case. S. 49, it was argued. and rightly, in my view, excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit or proceedings with respect to rights of tenure holders in respect of land covered by the notification under S. 4 or with respect to any other matter for which the proceedings Could or ought to have been taken under the Act (Ram Adhar Singh v. Ram Roop Singh, 1968 All LJ 46 : AIR 1968 SC 714 ) and Zor Singh v. Hukam Singh, 1971 Rev. Dec. 331. Possession over certain chaks was transferred in consolidation in this case between 28th to 31st Dec., 1956 and notification u/s 52 issued on 18-4-59. The lower appellate court completely lost sight of the fact that in the instant case there is no dispute at all raised with respect to 'land' covered under the above mentioned Act. The subject matter of dispute comprises of house and shops pertaining to the temple. An adjudication by the consolidation authorities with regard to status of the defendant as Chela of Basudeo Ramanujdas will hold good in respect only of land under consolidation. It is not a judgement in rem, the defendant cannot, therefore, lay claim to the house and shops on the basis of S. 49. The approach of the learned Additional District Judge in the matter is misconceived. 11. This leads me to the chief controversy involved in the case namely whether the defendant-respondent is entitled to be the Sarvarakar in terms of the Waqfnama dated 14-4-1866 (Ex. 5-. The approach of the learned Additional District Judge in the matter is misconceived. 11. This leads me to the chief controversy involved in the case namely whether the defendant-respondent is entitled to be the Sarvarakar in terms of the Waqfnama dated 14-4-1866 (Ex. 5-. The answer to this depends largely on the question whether he is 'Virakt Jeehaq' and related as such to Maharaj Dharnidhar the original Sarvarakar. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the courts below are not right in identifying the expression 'Virakt Jeehaq' with a Sanyasi. The performance of 'Braja Homa' and 'Shradha' for self is insisted where one takes to Sanyas, but this is not the requirement for taking one as Chela or initiating him to the Vaishanv (Ramanuj) cult. It was contended for the appellants, on the other hand, that in view of the finding on the point by the courts below, the defendant-respondent could not claim to succeed. Upon close scrutiny, I find that the respondents' contention in this behalf is well founded. 12. Indisputedly, Maharaj Dharnidhar was the original Sarvarakar appointed on 14-4-1866 (Ex. 5). He appointed his Chela Girdhar Ramanujdas as the successor under his will dated Jan. 22, 1886 (Ex. 2). Girdhar Ramanujdas appointed in his turn his Chela viz. Basudeo Ramanujdas by Will dated 2-2-1925/22-2-1931 (Ex. 6,,7). Basudeo Ramanujdas died on Mar. 24, 1951. Both the courts below have accepted as proved the defendants' contention that there were ceremonies performed on Ram Naumi, 1946 as alleged by him. The trial court said. ........... I feel that the evidence on behalf of the defendant is overwhelming in support of his case that certain ceremonies were gone into when he was adopted as Chela by Mahant Basudeo Das on Ram Navami day of 1946". The appellate court affirmed this, too specifically. It is relevant at this stage to mention in brief the ceremonies gone into that day for taking in the defendant as Chela and simultaneously initiating him to the Vaishnav (Ramanuj) cult. The witnesses in support of this are D. W. Ram Ujagar (Guru Bhai of Basdudeo Ramanujdas), D. W. Swami Sudarshanacharya of Hardwar. D. W. Mahant Murlidhar and D. W. Mahant Jairam Das besides the defendant himself. Each of them was present on the occasion. Nothing has been suggested to through doubt on their authenticity. The witnesses in support of this are D. W. Ram Ujagar (Guru Bhai of Basdudeo Ramanujdas), D. W. Swami Sudarshanacharya of Hardwar. D. W. Mahant Murlidhar and D. W. Mahant Jairam Das besides the defendant himself. Each of them was present on the occasion. Nothing has been suggested to through doubt on their authenticity. According to them, the defendant performed 'mudan'; Shankh and Chakra were carved on his person; he was given the name of Bardraj Ramanujdas; 'Mantra' was imparted into his ears by the Guru; Havan Panchrat' was performed and feast given to Mahants. Subsequent to the death of Basudeo Ramanujdas, the. defendant was placed on the Gaddi formally on May 11, 1951 for which invitation was issued to various persons (Ex. A-3) and the photo (Ex. A-4) was also drawn. Each of these witnesses is of Vaishanav (Ramanuj) cult as affirmed on oath and as such apprised of the requisites for initiating a person as Chela in this sect. 13. Under the terms of the endowment cit. April 14, 1866 created by Snit. Ramdei the person entitled to he Sarvarakar has to he Lal related to Maharaj Dharnidhar, (b) a Jeehaq and (c) Virakt. The founder abjured all her interest in the endowment. The trust created was public and religious. This as also so held by this court on 11.8.1942 deciding C.A. No. 138 of 79 (Kannolal v. Basudeo Ramanujdas) vide copy of decree (Ex. 4). (That related to this particular endowment as appearing also from the order dated 4-4-44 (Ex. A-8) relating to correction of papers). By virtue of successive intervening links referred to above, the defendant is spiritual descendant of Maharaj Dharnidhar, Chela is in the position of spiritual son. In Parbhudaval v. Lalta Das, AIR 1926 Oudh 293 reference is made to the writings of Yajnavalkya translated as - "The preceptor, a qualified disciple, a brother of the same religious persuasion and an associate in holiness (one living in the sane heritage and belonging to the order) shall, in order, inherit (i.e., the next succeeding in the absence of previous person), the properties (hooks, clothes etc.) of a Vanprastha, Yati and Brahmacharin (religious student)." 14. In Pt. In Pt. Parmanand v. Nihal Chand, AIR 1938 PC 195 it was held that the property of a Udasi cannot be inherited by his natural relatives but passes on his death to his spiritual heir including Chela who is recognised as his spiritual son. 15. Parties' learned counsel agreed in the course of their arguments before this Court that the expression 'Jeehaq' denotes a celebate. Celibacy signifies", the condition or state of life of an unmarried person, particularly of one who vows never to marry". (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. 1979 p. 202). In Williams 'Sanskrit English Dictionary (page 689) brahmacharyavrat is explained as meaning "leading the life of a religious student, practising chastity." Evidence is unrebutted on the point that the respondent has been unmarried and nothing absolutely has been averred to reflect against his chastity. 16. Controversy is raised with respect to the significance of 'Virakt'. In William's Sanskrit-English Dictionary at page 934. Virakt is treated as equivalent to Viranj which is defined as- "to be changed in colour, be discoloured, lose the natural colour, to become changed in disposition, became indifferent to, take no interest in, regard with indifference become estranged or disaffected, grow cold. Caus-ranja yati, Yitum to colour, dye, make of various colour, to cause to be indifferent, make estranged, cause to dislike." 17. For the order of Dashnami Sannyasis founded by Sankar, the ceremonies of initiation do include the performance of Shradha of own self and Biraja Homam. In B. K. Mukherjea, Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust (4th Ed) 1979 at page 333, the ceremonies of initiation into that faith are described as under "As regards the order of the Dashnami Sannyasis founded by Shankara, the cermonies of initiation are laid down in a treatise known as Sanyas Grahan Padhati. The ceremonies which are modelled on those prescribed in the smritis are of elaborate character and are characterised by lofty ideas of spirituality and renunciation. They include the shaving of the head, casting off of the sacred thread and distribution of property amongst relations and Brahmins reserving only such amount as would be necessary for the Honia sacrifice. A postulant has got to perform Tarpan and eight fold Shradhas, the last of which is Jeeva Shradha or Sradha of his own self and having performed his own death relations after his death. A postulant has got to perform Tarpan and eight fold Shradhas, the last of which is Jeeva Shradha or Sradha of his own self and having performed his own death relations after his death. he becomes, so to say, dead to the world, Then certain homam ceremonies are prescribed, the last of which is Biraja Homa. While offering oblations during the last Biraja Homam he repeats "Outlet my mind, understanding Chitta, Ahankar (sense of ego) and the senses be purified. I am light, taintless desire less, senseless I have become. "At the end of the ceremony, the aspirant has no property at all, for even the sacrificial vessels if they are of wood must be burnt in the fire and if they are of metal must be given to the priest." 18. In Avsarala Kondol Row v. Swamulavaru, (1917) 40 Ind Cas 535 : AIR 1918 Mad. 402 Srinivasa Iyangar, J. pointed out the rites and ceremonies which the postulant for the order of Sanyas has to perform. It was stated that he has to perform his death ceremony and the eight shradhas the last of which is his own Shradh, he has then to perform Prajapathiyesthi and finally Biraja Homam. Similar was the practice established in Ramdhan Puri v. Dalmer Puri, (1910) 2 Ind Cas 385. Both these decisions were cited with approval by a D. B. of this Court in Baldeo Pd. v. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, AIR 1930 All. 643. The courts below overlooked that the case of Baldeo Prasad (supra) and also the case of Gangeshwara Nand Giri v. Som Giri, AIR 1949 All 718 , cited by them related to ceremonies and rites for initiation into the order of Sanyasis. The ceremonies requisite for this purpose are also to be found discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1980 SC 707 : 1980 All LJ 299. 19. In the instant case, however, as the respondents' learned counsel rightly contended, we are concerned with a sect of Vaishnavais. The great teacher Ramanuja founded the religious sect known as Sri Vaishnab. "The philosophical theory propounded by Ramanuja is known as Visistadwaita or qualified non-dualism as distinguished from pure non-dualism of Shankar. According to Shankar there is no other reality except God and consequently the world or creation is nothing but an illusion. The great teacher Ramanuja founded the religious sect known as Sri Vaishnab. "The philosophical theory propounded by Ramanuja is known as Visistadwaita or qualified non-dualism as distinguished from pure non-dualism of Shankar. According to Shankar there is no other reality except God and consequently the world or creation is nothing but an illusion. Ramanuja, on the other hand, tried to establish that God and his creation together constitute an integral whole and in that sense alone the creation is not different from the creator" (See B. K. Mukerjea, Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust p. 23). Ramanuja was an advocate of the worship of Vishnu as the only symbol of God, his followers are known as Vaishnabs. 20. Evidence on the record is clear and cogent on the point that the founders as well as successive Sarvarakars in the present case were Vaishnabs the followers of the sect of Ramanuja, and not pertaining to the order of Sankar. The clearest proof of this is furnished by the fact that Maharaj Dharnidhar, Girdhar Ramanujadas, Basudeo Ramanujdas were all Vaishnabs of this sect. Rani Bharosey Lal (P. W.) admitted in cross-examination that all of them were 'Jeehaqs' and Virakt. Though it is not asserted that any of them was initiated into the order of Sanyasis or that there had to be Shradha for self and Biraja Homam performed when they were taken in as Sarvarakars. If, as is manifest, no such rite or ceremony was required in their case, it does not appear on what principle could these be imported in relation to the defendant-respondent. It was a mistake, in my view, for the courts below to have assumed that these ceremonies were necessary to be performed in order to be a Virakt Chela within the meaning of the deed of endowment. In the context in which the expression appears and was understood in the course of successive changes during the long period of 1866 to 1951, it may not be accepted that one has to be a 'Sanyasi' inducted as such in order to function as a Virakt Chela within the meaning of the endowment deed, Virakt is not synonymous, in other words, with a Sanyasi. A Vaishnaba inducted into the order of Ramanuja sect has been and may evidently be considered as Virakt. For that Shradha for self or Birja Homarn are not required to be performed. A Vaishnaba inducted into the order of Ramanuja sect has been and may evidently be considered as Virakt. For that Shradha for self or Birja Homarn are not required to be performed. The distinction is found noticed also by a D. B. in Susil Chandra Sen v. Gobind Chandra Das, AIR 1934 Pat. 431 which points that "A Nihanji Baihnab is a celibate Sanyasi without any worldly attachments quite unlike the Grihastha or house holder class of Mahants found outside the of Sankarcharya or unlike the Puris and other five clans and half out of Dasnamis who mix freely in the business of the world and carry on trade and often accumulate property". (P. 432) The instant case relates not to a Dasnami or Sanyasi, but a person inducted into the sect of Ramanuj as Vaishnava and subject to the rigours of the discipline thereof. Consequently, the defendant-respondent was competent to be appointed Sarvarakar as was done in this case on May 11, 1951. In view of this, Ram Bharosey Lal or after his death his legal representatives may not claim to be made Sarvarakars as the descendants of the founders. The line of succession specified in the endowment deed is not exhausted. 21. The appeal fails for the reasons given above and the cross-objection succeeds. The appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection allowed. In the circumstances, costs on parties throughout.