Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th July, 1995, passed in Title Suit No. 16 of 1991 by the Sub-ordinate Judge-I, Bettiah. 2. The appellant before this Court was the plaintiff no. 10 of the abovementioned suit and the plaintiff nos. 1 to 9 were the Deities. The suit was filed for seeking declaration that the plaintiff appellant no. 10 was the Sebait of the deities. A petition was filed by the plaintiff no. 10 (appellant) for appointment of a Receiver to manage the suit properties properly and also to direct the Circle Officer, Bagaha to submit the account of the usufructs of the suit properties. 3. Some more relevant facts are that there was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subsequently converted into one under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in which order was passed on 8th December 1988 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha, declaring the possession of a dead person who was Banarasi Devi, mother of the defendant no. 1 of the suit. During the pendency of the proceeding, the Circle Officer, Bagaha was appointed as the Receiver and he was continuing in possession and mismanaging the properties. So the plaintiff no. 10 filed a petition for appointing a suitable person as Receiver of the suit properties to save it from further mismanagement by the Circle Officer. A rejoinder was also filed by the defendant no. 1 of the suit as also by the other defendants. Except defendant no. 1, all other defendants supported the case of the plaintiff. It was only defendant no. 1 who contested the claim and it was submitted that he was the Sebait of the deities being the adopted son of Chiranji Lal. So the plaintiffs petition for Receivership was fit to be rejected. 4. The lower court rejected the prayer of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant no. 1 was declared to be in possession by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha, and so he was in possession. Moreover, the lower court further stated that the order of the Magistrate dated 8th December 1988 was final and so there was no question of appointing a fresh Receiver. Since the allegations of mis-management were directed against the Circle Officer and not against the defendant no. 1, the allegations regarding the Circle Officer were irrelevant. Moreover, the lower court further stated that the order of the Magistrate dated 8th December 1988 was final and so there was no question of appointing a fresh Receiver. Since the allegations of mis-management were directed against the Circle Officer and not against the defendant no. 1, the allegations regarding the Circle Officer were irrelevant. On this ground, the learned Sub-Judge rejected the prayer for appointment of Receiver. 5. Certain further relevant facts are worth mentioning. It was admitted case of the parties that one C-anga Ram had four sons, namely, Asha Ram, Ghasi Ram, Cheta Ram and Neta Ram. Chiranji Lai was from the stock of Ghasi Ram and defendant no. 1 is the adopted son of Chitranji Lal, although he is the natural son of Surajmal. The descendants of Ganga Ram had donated certain lands to the deities by a deed of Samarpan-nama and it was stipulated that Sebait shall be appointed or selected by the donors or their ancestors. There was dispute between the contesting plaintiff no. 10 and defendant no. 1 regarding Sebaitship of the deities. The plaintiffs claimed that earlier Hanuman Sao was the Sebait who migrated to Nepal and made over charge of Sebaitship to Baijnath.After Baijnath Prasad his son Hari Prasad remained Sebait from the year 1945 to 1964 and then he resigned in favour of Yamuna Prasad, his elder brother who was managing the suit properties with his son, plaintiff no. 10, who was discharging the function of Sebait, after Yamuna Prasad died in the year 1968. The case of defendant no. 1 was that after Hanuman Sao and Baijnath, Chiranji Lal became the Sebait and thereafter his wife Banarasi Devi took over Sebaitship and after that the defendant no. 1 was continuing as Sebait. 6. However, defendant no. 1 in his. written statement admitted that Mahabir and Hanuman, both had shifted to Nepal and acquitted citizenship there. Chiranji was also a citizen of Nepal. It was also almost admitted that defendant no. 1 was the citizen of Nepal, but it was sought to be proved by filing certain income tax returns that defendant no. 1 was holding property at Raxaul and, hence, he was citizen of India. However, in the W.S. defendant no. Chiranji was also a citizen of Nepal. It was also almost admitted that defendant no. 1 was the citizen of Nepal, but it was sought to be proved by filing certain income tax returns that defendant no. 1 was holding property at Raxaul and, hence, he was citizen of India. However, in the W.S. defendant no. 1 did not state in positive terms that he was living in India in order to manage the affairs of the deities, rather it was stated that he was managing the affairs by coming over to India off and on. Voter list etc. were filed by the plaintiffs to show that the defendant no. 1 was the citizen of Nepal. So far the contention of defendant no. 1 that the S.D.M., Bagaha, passed the order dated 8.12.1988 in favour of Chianji Lal or Banarasi Devi, it is relevant to state that a reference was made to the Munsif under the old Code of Criminal Procedure to decide the factum of possession. The learned Munsif decided it in favour of Chiranji Lai and then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha, passed the order on 8th December 1988 as per the findings of the learned Munsif. However, it has been stated in the Memo of appeal that Chiranji Lal died in Nepal in the year 1969 and his widow Banarasi Devi died in Nepal in the year 1982. No counter affidavit has been filed in this appeal to controvert the above submissions regarding the death of Chiranji Lal and Banarasi Devi. It has also been mentioned in the Memo of appeal that when the proceeding was decided in favour of Banarasi Devi, a criminal revision was filed (Cr. Revn. No. 83/83) by the plaintiff no. 10 in this High Court which by its order dated 7th Dec. 1983, set aside the order and directed that only living Sebait can be deemed to be in possession. Then there was a remand of the proceeding. Subsequently, the S.D.M., Bagaha referred the matter to the Munsif, Bagaha for deciding the factum of possession. The Munsif found that the plaintiff no. 10 was the Manager of the Sebait and held that Chiranji Lal was the Sebait. The S.D.M., Bagaha by order dated 8th December 1998, declared the possession of "Thakurjee" with Chiranji Lai as Sebait. These statements have also not been controverted in the counter affidavit. The Munsif found that the plaintiff no. 10 was the Manager of the Sebait and held that Chiranji Lal was the Sebait. The S.D.M., Bagaha by order dated 8th December 1998, declared the possession of "Thakurjee" with Chiranji Lai as Sebait. These statements have also not been controverted in the counter affidavit. So the order of the learned S.D.M., Bagaha, holding Chiranji Lal as the Sebait was, perhaps, nonest; because, as per the statement in the Memo of appeal Chiranji Lal was already dead. The learned Sub-Judge has already held in his impugned order that the order of the learned S.D.M., Bagaha, was confined even by the Supreme Court, but during the course of hearing, none of the orders of the Supreme Court was referred before me to support this statement of the learned Munsif. Perhaps, the learned Munsif based his statement on the rejoinder filed by the defendant no. 1 to the petition of plaintiff no. 10 seeking appointment of Receiver. 7. The learned Sub-Judge also held that since the plaintiffs stated in his plaint that the conditions mentioned in the Samarpan-nama regarding the appointment of Sebait by election exercised by the descendants of the donors was given a go-by and, so the right of Sebaitship was governed by the common law and, therefore, defendant no. 1 would be the Sebait by inheritance on the death of Banarasi Devi and Chiranji Lal. The point is whether defendant no. 1 had of course become the Sebait of deities, he being the citizen of Nepal and being a permanent resident of that place. Moreover, if he was filing income tax returns for the properties held by him in India, it would not amount to interpretation that he was appointed as Sebait or that he became the Sebait of the deities after the death of his father or mother. The fact whether Chiranji Lal had become Sebait of the deities at any point of time was also a disputed fact. So it could not be held on the basis of the order passed by the S.D.M., Bagaha, that Chiranji Lal was, of course, Sebait of the deities and he was in possession of the suit properties as such because he was already dead when this order was passed. In such circumstance, it was imperative on the part of the learned Sub-Judge to decide whether, of course, defendant no. In such circumstance, it was imperative on the part of the learned Sub-Judge to decide whether, of course, defendant no. 1, who was a citizen of Nepal, was residing in India or at a particular place where the deities and its properties existed in order to enable him to manage the suit property properly. It was contended on behalf of plaintiff no. 10 and supported by all other defendants, who were the family members of the contesting parties, as descendants of the original donors, that the Circle Officer, Bagaha, was still continuing in possession of the suit properties as a Receiver and he was mismanaging the properties. The learned Sub-Judge failed to take notice of this fact in his serious consideration and dismissed the contention of the plaintiff no. 10 just on the basis of the order passed by the S.D.M., Bagaha dated 8th December 1988. By the impugned order, he also decided the question of Sebaitship which was claimed by the plaintiff no. 10 and defendant no. 1 and ignored the contention of plaintiff no. 10 that the suit properties were being mismanaged by the Circle Officer and so, there was necessity for appointing a fresh Receiver. So it is apparent that the learned Sub-Judge failed to address himself to the main question which was raised by the plaintiff no. 10 and which was supported by all other defendants, except defendant no. 1. Before me, some Lawyer appeared on behalf of defendant nos. 4 and 5 of the suit to support the case of the defendant no. 1 and the impugned order, but a Lawyer on behalf of all other defendants of the suit supported the plaintiffs case and challenged the impugned order. The rejoinders filed by the defendants, other than defendant no. 1 stated specifically that the Ciricle Officer, Bagaha was still continuing in possession of the suit properties and was mismanaging the same. So this fact had also to be taken into serious consideration by the learned Sub-Judge before passing the impugned order. 8. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Sub-Judge did not take into account the relevant principles governing grant or rejection of a prayer for appointment of Receiver and he was, perhaps, misled by the orders passed in the proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P.C. by the Magistrate. 8. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Sub-Judge did not take into account the relevant principles governing grant or rejection of a prayer for appointment of Receiver and he was, perhaps, misled by the orders passed in the proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P.C. by the Magistrate. I am further of the opinion that the matter deserves serious consideration in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the rejoinders to the petition of the plaintiff no. 10. So this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower court for passing a fresh order in the light of the materials placed before it, regarding the prayer of the plaintiff no. 10 for appointment of a Receiver.