Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The defendants, against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1972, passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Barh, in Title Suit No. 38 of 1966 have preferred this Appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit was decreed in part. The plaintiff was declared Mahanth of Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat, Gulabbagh, Barh within Patna district and was entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants. 3. One Gulab Das, filed the present suit against the defendants. Accordingly to him Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat Math at Gulabbagh was founded by one Mahanth Ganesh Das. As per the prevailing custom the Mahanth used to nominate his successor Mahanth. Similarly Mahanth Ishwar Das of the Sangat had nominated Uttam Das as his successor Mahanth. Sandhya Das, the defendant No. 1 was the Chela of Uttam Das and Gulab Das, the plaintiff was the Chela of Sandhya Das. However, Sandhya Das renounced his Guru Uttam Das and became Chela of another Mahanth, Jiwan Das of Dariyapur Masudbigha Math. Mahanth Uttam Das nominated Gulab Das as his successor Mahanth, who began to look after and manage the properties of the Sangat and after the death of Uttam Das, became the Mahanth of Gulabbagh Sangat In the meantime, after the death of Mahanth Jiwan Das, Sandiya Das become Mahanth of Dariyapur Masudbigha Math and continued as such. There were certain litigations between Gulab Das and Sandhya Das including a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code over the Sangat Properties. 4. The plaintiff came to know that Rana Sheolakhpati Singh, the defendant No. 4, in collusion with Bandya Das, the defendant No. 1 had manufactured a Trust deed dated 16.7.1960 and deceptfully obtained signature of Mahanth Uttam Das thereon. However, the said document was never acted upon and was asked to be declared as void. 5. The defendant No. 4 also executed Farzi sale-deed dated 11.2.1961 in the names of his relation Smt. Ramshakhi Devi and a trustee, Basudeo Singh, the defendant No. 5, which was not binding on Sangat. 6. The proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code was finally decided against the plaintiff on 22.6.1965 and thereafter on 23.6.1965 he was dispossessed from the Sangat properties by the defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the said proceeding crops of the suit land were auctioned and a sum of Rs. 6. The proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code was finally decided against the plaintiff on 22.6.1965 and thereafter on 23.6.1965 he was dispossessed from the Sangat properties by the defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the said proceeding crops of the suit land were auctioned and a sum of Rs. 4500.00 was deposited in the Sub-divisional treasury. 7. The State of Bihar acquired land of the Sangat, but because of litigation its compensation amount to the true of Rs. 4262.64 paise was kept in deposit. 8. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to be receive the aforesaid amount in the suit the bonafide transferring of the Sangat properties from Mahanth Uttam Das were also impleaded as defendants 12 to 18. 9. Mahanth Sandhya Das, the defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and contested the suit. According to him Mahanth Ghat Narain Das of the Sangat died without any Chela or nominating any Mahanth. However, one Hari Das came and re-established the Sangat. It was true that the plaintiff Gulab Das was his (Sandhya Das ) Chela but on detonation of his character, he had removed him from his Chelaship. Uttam Das never nominated the said Gulab Das, the plaintiff as his successor Mahanth. It was true that he (Sandhya Das) had become the Sadik Chela of Mahanth Jiwan Das, but his connection with Mahanth Uttam Das was not severed. He was devoted to him and after his death became Mahanth of Gulabbagh Sangat. Mahanth Uttam Das had created a Trust, wherein he (Sandhya Das) was shown to have been nominated as Mahanth. From the lifetime of Mahanth Uttam Das itself the Sangat properties were looked after by the said Truest Committee. After death of Mahanth Uttam Das he became Mahanth. The transfers of the Sangat properties made by Mahanth Uttam Das at the instance of Gulab Das, the plaintiff in favour of the proforma defendants 12 to 18 were not binding on him (the defendant No. 1) and the final order under Sec. 145 of the Code was rightly passed in his favour. However, some lands of the Sangat were transferred in order to perform the Shradh ceremony/Bhandara of late Mahanth Uttam Das. 10. Defendants 4, 7 and 10 the alleged trustees, the defendants second party also filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. However, some lands of the Sangat were transferred in order to perform the Shradh ceremony/Bhandara of late Mahanth Uttam Das. 10. Defendants 4, 7 and 10 the alleged trustees, the defendants second party also filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. According to them the defendant No. 1 was the senior most Chela of Mahanth Uttam Das, who succeeded him as Mahanth of Gulabbagh Sangat. A Trust was created by Mahanth Uttam Das for the benefit of the Sangat, which came into force from the date of its registration (16.7.1960) and the management of the Sangat was vested in the trustees. The trustees, therefore, performed the Shradh/Bhandara of late Mahanth Uttam Das. Removal of the plaintiff from Gulabbagh Sangat found recorded in the trust deed executed by Mahanth Uttam Das. Trustees recognised Sandhya Das a Mahanth and the plaintiff had no concern, whatsoever, with the Sangat properties and he was not entitled to any relief in the suit. The suit was, therefore, fit to be dismissed. 11. The proforma defendants 12 to 18 also filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. They claimed their possession over the lands transferred to them by Mahanth Uttam Das, over which they were duly mutated in the revenue records of the State and were paying rent against receipts and after declaration of their possession by the final order passed in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code, they were entitled to receive sale proceeds of the crops kept in deposit during the proceedings. 12. The trial Court on 6.12.1968, issued notice to the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts under Sec. 50(1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. Pursuant to the notice the Board appeared in the suit, but neither filed a petition for being added as party thereto in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 50(2) of the Act not contested it. 13. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.9.1972, the suit was decreed in part declaring the plaintiff as the Mahanth of the Sangat entitled to recover possession of the Sangat Lands from the defendants first and second set. 13. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.9.1972, the suit was decreed in part declaring the plaintiff as the Mahanth of the Sangat entitled to recover possession of the Sangat Lands from the defendants first and second set. The trial Court found that the custom prevalent in the Sangat was that the present Mahanth used to nominate his successor, which did not require any further approval and the said nominated Chela used to became Mahanth after death of his Guru, Secondly, if a Chela became the Chela of another Mahanth and after death of his second Guru became Mahanth of the said Math, he forfeited his right to become Mahanth of the Sangat of his former Guru. By registered award dated 12.12.1957, during the life time of Mahanth Uttam Das, the matter was settled and the plaintiff was accepted as the Mahanth incharge of management of Gulabbagh Sangat, whereas the defendant No. 1 of Dariyapur Masudbigha Math. It was further held that actually the Trust deed, Exhibit B was manufactured by bringing Mahanth Uttam Das under undue influence by hook or crook, which was never acted upon and the same was neither valid nor operative. The contentions of the defendant No. 1 that he was found nominated as Mahanth of Gu!abbagh Sangat in the said Trust deed and became Mahanth after the death of Mahanth Uttam Das were not correct. The plaintiff, Gulab Das was Mahanth of Gulabbagh Sangat. He was validity nominated by Mahanth Uttam Das as Mahanth. The plaintiff got title over the suit land as Mahanth and was entitled to recover possession thereof from the defendant No. 1 and the defendants second party only and not from the proforma defendants 12 to 18. 14. Since the sole plaintiff, Mahanth Gulab Das died on 18.11.1972 i.e. before filing of the instant appeal, on the petition under Chapter VI of the Patna High Court Rules, on behalf of the appellants, they were permitted to prosecute the appeal as against Dharam Das, Minor Chela of late Mahanth Gulab Das, under the guardianship of his father Shamsher Singh, who was already impleaded in the memorandum of appeal as respondent No. 1. The said respondent No. 1 appeared in the appeal through Vakalatnama. 15. During the pendency of this appeal, on 12.3.1974 further execution proceedings of the decree under appeal was stayed. 16. The said respondent No. 1 appeared in the appeal through Vakalatnama. 15. During the pendency of this appeal, on 12.3.1974 further execution proceedings of the decree under appeal was stayed. 16. One Acharya Ram Chandra Shastri filed a petition at flag 54 to be substituted in place of deceased respondent No. 1, Mahanth Gulab Das, the sole plaintiff, after removing the name of Dharam Das, who was substituted in his place. The appellants as well as one Fandi Gope, claiming to be the gurdian of the said minor respondent No. 1, filed two separate counter affidavits at flags 43 and 46 thereto. By order dated 2.5.1977 the said petition was directed to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 17. In the meantime, this appeal stood dismissed as against respondents 2 and 4 to 15 for non-compliance of order No. 35 dated 2.2.1976. On this account, the question arose as to whether the whole appeal became incompetent. By order dated 3.8.1977 this question was also directed to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 18. During the pendency "of the appeal on 9-10.4.1978, the appellant No. 1, Mahanth Sandhya Das died. A petition at flag A was filed on 5.7.1978 for substitution vice deceased appellant No. 1 and to substitute one Guruleen Das in his place. By order dated 12.9.1978 this matter was also directed to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 19. A petition at flag A on behalf of one Ayadhya Das was filed through Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, Advocate claiming to be the heir/sucessor of deceased appellant No. 1 and so entitled to be substituted in his place. By order dated 18.4.1979 the said petition was also directed to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 20. A petition under Order I, Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure at flag 100" alongwith a Vakalatnama at flag 51 and a supplementary affidavit thereto at flag 96 were filed on behalf of the alleged trustees, who were impleaded as respondents 2 and 4 to in the appeal but subsequently the Appeal stood dismissed as against them. The prayer was for being added in the appeal as trustees-respondents in the appeal. The prayer was for being added in the appeal as trustees-respondents in the appeal. By order dated 21.2.1994 the said petition at flag 100 and its supplementary affidavit at flag 96 were also directed to be considered at the time of hearing. 21. After the final hearing of the Appeal was started till its conclusion, nobody either on behalf of the aforesaid Acharya Ram Chandra Shastri or Ayodhya Das appeared to press the petitions at flags 54 and A respectively. Those petitions are accordingly rejected. Accordingly Dharam Das continued as the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of this appeal. 22. In my opinion, even after dismissal of this appeal as against the respondents 2 and 4 to 15, the whole appeal did not become incompetent. The respondents 2 and 4 to 8 were the alleged trustees-defendants second party against whom the plaintiff had prayed relief of recovery of possession of the Sangat land as also for declaration that there was no valid trust of which they were alleged to be the members and no relief was prayed for against the respondents 9 to 15, who were proforma defendants 12 to 18. However, the main relief in the suit was for declaration that the sole plaintiff was the Mahanth of the Sangat and the defendants first and second party had no concern therewith. 23. Since some of the alleged trustees, i.e., defendants second party were appellants 2 to 4 in the appeal and were prosecuting the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree and no appeal against the impugned judgment and decree was preferred by the respondents 2 and 4 to 8 even in their absence, this appeal could be decided on merits. 24. In such circumstance, in my opinion, in the petition under Order I, Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure at flag 100 filed on 25.5.1992, the aforesaid five trustees have not been able to make out a case for being added as party respondents in this appeal, specially when they were already party Respondents 2 and 4 to 8 and the appeal was dismissed as against them earlier. The petition at flag 100 alongwith its supplementary affidavit at flag 96 are, therefore, rejected. 25. The petition at flag 100 alongwith its supplementary affidavit at flag 96 are, therefore, rejected. 25. So far as the petition at flag A filed by Mahanth Guruleen Das on 5.7.1978 for being substituted in place of the deceased appellant No. 1 was concerned, the same was filed within time and there is no opposition to the prayer made therein by any one. No other person has come forward with a claim for being substituted in place of the deceased appellant No. 1. Accordingly, the petition at flag A is allowed. The name of Mahanth Sandhya Das, the deceased appellant No. 1 is expunged and in his place Mahanth Guruleen Das, who has already appeared, is substituted. 26. It is not in dispute that the properties belonged to the Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat, Gulabbagh, Barh and its Mahanth was only the shebait/manager thereof during his regime and was not authorised to either create a Trust for it of his own or to transfer the properties of the Sangat. 27. It is true that on 16.7.1960, at the time of execution of the Trust deed (Ext. B) Mahanth Uttam Das had grown too old and his first Chela, Sandhya Das had renounced connection with him and become Chela of another Mahanth and various litigations, including a proceedings under Sec. 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure between Sandhya Das and Gulab Das were going on since the year 1959. Mahanth Uttam Das had become senile and was unable to look after the Sangat Properties at the relevant time. He died on 8.11.1960 i.e. only within four months of the execution of Ext. B. The trial court in the aforesaid circumstance, on the basis of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, rightly came to the conclusion that actually Ext. B was manufactured by bringing Mahanth Uttam Das under undue influence by hook and crook and it was never acted upon. Ext. B. was, therefore, held to be invalid and in operative. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding. The said finding of the trial court is accordingly confirmed. 28. Consequently the sale-deed dated 11.2.1961 in respect of the Sangat properties executed by the defendant No. 4, claiming himself to be a trustee on the basis of Ext. B was void, illegal and invalid. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding. The said finding of the trial court is accordingly confirmed. 28. Consequently the sale-deed dated 11.2.1961 in respect of the Sangat properties executed by the defendant No. 4, claiming himself to be a trustee on the basis of Ext. B was void, illegal and invalid. The defendant No. 4 had no authority to transfer the properties of Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat, Gulabbagh, Barh to any body. 29. In my opinion, after the present suit was instituteed on 18.12.1965, transfers, if any, of the Sangat properties, made by any body claiming himself to be connected with the Sangat in any manner, including Dharam Das, the respondent No. 1 herein were hit by the doctrine of lis pendence and those transfers are declared void and invalid on the ground that those transferors had no authority to make transfer of the Sangat properties. 30. It is true that after the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.9.1992 was passed and before the instant appeal was filed on 27.2.1993, Mahanth Gulab Das died on 18.11.1972. According to the appellants herein he died without nominating any person as Mahanth of Gulabbagh Nanakshai Sangat. However, they impleaded, one Dharam Das, a minor Chela of late Gulab Das, under the guardianship of his father, as respondent No. 1 in the memorandum of appeal and filed a petition under Chapter VI Part II Rule 3 of the Patna High Court Rules at Flag 80, which was allowed on 4.1.1975 any they were permitted to prosecute the appeal as against the said respondent No. 1. further find that subsequently other persons came out with their claim to be substituted in place of the deceased Mahanth Gulab Das. This Court directed the trial court to conduct an enquiry under Order XXII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard and send its findings. The Subordinate Judge reported that Dharam Das was the spiritual Chela of Mahanth Guiab Das and was nominated by him as his successor Mahanth of Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat, Gulabbagh, Barh. 31. In such circumstance, confirming the findings of the trial court that Mahanth Gulab Das had succeeded Mahanth Uttam Das and Sadhya Das had no concern with the Sangat in question, I hereby hold that Mahanth Dharam Das succeeded Mahanth Gulab Das. 31. In such circumstance, confirming the findings of the trial court that Mahanth Gulab Das had succeeded Mahanth Uttam Das and Sadhya Das had no concern with the Sangat in question, I hereby hold that Mahanth Dharam Das succeeded Mahanth Gulab Das. However, it is made clear that Dharamdas, on account of being Mahanth, is only concerned with the management of the Sangat and to act as shebait, and had/has no right to transfer its properties in any event and as such transfer, if any of the Sangat property made by him are declared void and invalid. 32. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the Nanaksahi Udasin Sangat, Gulabbagh, Barh, in order to safeguard its properties 1 think most desirable to appoint a three man committee of the local officers of Barh, namely, (1) the Senior most Additional District Judge, Barh (2) the Sub-divisional Officer, Barh and (3) the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barh for its supervision and framing a scheme for it, after making such enquiry as thought proper in accordance with law governing a trust and take appropriate steps for recovery of its lands illegally transferred right from 11.2.1961 onwards till date. 33. In my opinion, Mahanth Dharam Das, the Respondent No. 1 has no authority or locus standi to enter into a compromise with either Guruleen Das, the substituted appellant No. 1 or other appellants/respondents i.e. the alleged trustees by virtue of the Trust deed dated 16.7.1960 (Ext. B) which has already been held to be void, illegal, invalid and inoperative and so the purported compromise petition signed by the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and the respondent No. 2 on the other, filed in the midst of hearing of this Appeal on 7.10.1996 is hereby rejected. 34. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations, directions and modifications in the impugned judgment and decree and the findings of the trial Court recorded therein are confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.