Judgment This First appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13-10-1992, passed by Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, in Original Suit No. 5/1991 and Misc. Case No. 41/1990, whereby the Misc. Case filed U/S 34 Indian Trust Act was rejected and the O.S. No. 5/1991 filed U/S 92 of the C.P.C. for permission to sell the property in suit was allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that o~' 2-7-1990 Mahant Satguru Sarananand and Math Garhwa Ghat filed an application U/S 34 of Indian Trust Act 1882 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 41/1990 on the assertion that Math Garhwa Ghat Is a registered Trust and Mahant Satguru Sarananand is the sole Mahant of the Trust. The Math 'has its moveable and immovable properties at Mirzapur, Banaras and Harldwar and the land at Harldwar Is a barren land and the Trust has no any benefit from it hence Mahant Satguru Sarananand has intended to sell the said land of the Trust to one Sri Ved Mata Gayatri Trust Shantikunj, Haridwar for a consideration of Rs. 35,50,000/-. It was also alleged that the Trust will purchase 21.20 acres of land In Village' Jogiwala, District Dehradun for establishment of Ashrama of the Math. Therefore, permission was sought to sell the property of the Trust situated at Haridwar. 3. On 29-5-1991 Mahant Satguru Sarananand and Swami Hardarshana Nand, Chela of Mahat Satguru Sarananand filed an application U/S 92 C.P.C. which was numbered as 0.5. No. 5/1991 seeking direction of the Court for the administration of Math Garhwa Ghat Trust and its authority for sale of property of the Math situated at Village Bhopatwala Kalan, District Haridwar. It was alleged in the application that a public charitable and religious trust, known. as Math Garhwa Ghat was established long ago by ancestor Guru of Mahant Sri Satguru Sarananand, and the main objects of the Trust were to propagate the principles and teachings of Sant Math amongst the public in general; to serve the Sadhu Sanyasies; to look after the economic and spiritual welfare of the public at large and to make suitable arrangements of the foods and abode for Sadhu Sanayasies in general. The objects and alms of the Trust have been described in detail in the Trust Deed dated 29-10-1958 executed by Mahant Har Seva Nandji, one of the ancestor Guru' of the plaintiffs. The objects and alms of the Trust have been described in detail in the Trust Deed dated 29-10-1958 executed by Mahant Har Seva Nandji, one of the ancestor Guru' of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff Mahant Sri Satguru Sarnanand is the sole surviving trustee of the aforesaid Trust and plaintiff No.2 Swami Hardarshana Nand (since deceased) was the Manager of the properties of the Trust in the District of Haridwar and therefore both the plaintiffs are persons who have much interest in the aforesaid Trust. It was also alleged that it has been experienced by the plaintiffs that in Haridwar area there are a large number of charitable and religious institutions who are carrying on activities almost akin to those of the above named Trust and keeping the activities of the aforesaid Trust confined to the area of Haridwar, would not be "doing much good to the aims of the' aforesaid Trust, so it has been considered better to extend the activities of the Trust to an area where it is most needed in the present circumstances and it was decided to shift the venue of such activities to areas situated in the District Dehradun, where till now no suitable charitable and religious institution has been established any Ashram. To establish Ashram at the new place sufficient land and large funds are required and at present the Trust does not have sufficient liquidated funds at its command. In the aforesaid circumstances permission to sell the land detailed in the Schedule attached with the application was sought. It was also alleged in the application that an other public charitable and religious Trust known as "Ved Mata Gayatri Trust", Shanti Kunj Haridwar has its Ashram and other properties just adjoining to the aforesaid land, and the trustees of the Said Trust needed the land for some similar charitabie purposes so they have Offered a very handsome price for the purchase of the land amounting to Rs. 35,50,000/_ and no better offer of price can be made by anyone else for the said land. It was also alleged that a Very Suitable land situated in Village Jogiwala in District Dehradun at a reasonable price amounting to Rs. 25,50,000/ - is available for establishment of Trust. The land so proposed to be purchased also includes house etc. existing there on and the balance amount of Rs. It was also alleged that a Very Suitable land situated in Village Jogiwala in District Dehradun at a reasonable price amounting to Rs. 25,50,000/ - is available for establishment of Trust. The land so proposed to be purchased also includes house etc. existing there on and the balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/_ shall be utilized for establishing a Suitable Ashram and for other purposes of the Trust and for no other purpose. In the Schedule of Property details of property has been given, the approximate area of which is 89,365.75 Sq. Ft. pertaining to plot Nos. 62/2mm 63/2nm 63/2m 64/1 etc, sitate in Village Bhopatwala Kalan Pargana Jwalapur Tehsil and District Haridwar. 4. The trial court consolidated the Misc. Case No. 41/1990 and O.S. No. 5/1991 for hearing and disposal. 5. Notice of the case was Published in local Newspaper for information of public at large and proceeding of drum beating was also got done in the area but no one has come forward to file any objection in the matter. 6. The trial Court after hearing learned Counsel and perusing the documents on record rejected the application Misc. Case No. 41/90 on the ground that Math Garhwa Ghat is a public religious and charitable Trust hence the provisions of Section 34 Indian Trust Act do not apply on its property, but the provisions of Section 92 C.P.C. will be applicable on the property of the Trust and accordingly allowed the 0.5. No. 5/91 and Mahant Satguru Sarananand and Swami Hardarshana Nand were permitted to sell the property In question to Ved Mata Trust Shantikunj Haridwar on the terms and conditions of the agreement for a consideration of Rs. 35,50,000/_. It was also directed that out. of the sale consideration, Rs. 25,50,000/_ Will be spent on the land to be purchased by the Math in Village Jogiwala, Dehradun and balance sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- will be spent for the welfare of plaintiffs' Math with the prior permission of the Court and the account of the expenditure will be produced in the Court within one month. 7. Feeling aggrieved Mahant Satguru Pramanand Chela Swami Har Shankaranand (Since deceased) filed the present appeal on the ground that the property of the Garhwa Ghat Math cannot be sold as per the provision of the Trust Deed dated 29-10-1958. 7. Feeling aggrieved Mahant Satguru Pramanand Chela Swami Har Shankaranand (Since deceased) filed the present appeal on the ground that the property of the Garhwa Ghat Math cannot be sold as per the provision of the Trust Deed dated 29-10-1958. It was also contended that the claim of Satguru Sarnanand was being contested by the appellant and others and the trial court had, in suit No. 153/1980, clearly held that it Would decide the question as to who was the successor-Mahant of Sri Har Shankeranand hence it was the duty of the Court to issue notices to the appellant and other persons interested to appear and participate in the proceeding U/S 92 C.P.C., particularly when the names of the persons, who were claiming to be the successors of Swami Har Shankaranand, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the court ,Itself. It was also pleaded that the cost of the land proposed to be sold would come to Rs.72 lacs yet the court below has sanctioned the sale of the said land on a meager amount of Rs. 35,50,000/-. Therefore, the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 13-10-1992 and dismiss the application filed by the respondents U/S 92 of C.P.C. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The relevant point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Mahant Satguru Premanand Chela Swami Har Shankaranand had any locus or grievance to maintain this appeal. It is to be seen whether Swami Premanand had ever been the Mahant of Math Garhwa Ghat or not, The record reveals that the appellant had neither flied any application nor affidavit In the appeal as to how he is concerned or aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1310-1992 passed by Additional District Judge granting permission to sell the property in question U/S 92 (1) (f) of the C.P.C. The record of the appeal shows that the appellant had flied an Injunction application before the Appellate Court praying therein that the respondents be restrained from selling any property of the Math known as "Garhwa Ghat" during the pendency of the appeal, but in this application there is no" allegation that either the order passed by the Addl. District Judge is without jurisdiction or finding recorded by the learned Judge is bad In any manner. District Judge is without jurisdiction or finding recorded by the learned Judge is bad In any manner. The record also reveals that the court below had invited objections from all concerned through Munadi as well as by publication of notice in the, Newspaper before passing the impugned order. 10. Even according to the case of the appellant Swami Har Shankaranand was the Mahant of the Math. The appellant in the injunction application filed before the Appellate Court has claimed himself to be succeeding Mahant of the Math "Garhwa Ghat" on the death of Swami Har Shankaranand. The counter affidavit has' been flied by the respondents before the High Court as Annexure C.A.10 to the counter affidavit, which is judgment dated 3-5-1991 passed by X Addl. District Judge, shows that Swami Sarananand, respondent No.1 has become Mahant after death of Swami Har Shankaranand. The aforesaid order dated 3-5-1991 also shows that appellant Premanand was not declared to be the Mahant. Again in view of Annexure C-A-8 to the counter affidavit it reveals that the competent authority in mutation proceeding vide order dated 15-61993 came to the conclusion that "Chadar Mahanthi" was given to Swami Satguru Sarananand and not to appellant Premanand on the death 'of Swami Har Shankaranand. Further paragraph-4 (g) to (r) and (s) of the aforesaid counter affidavit reveal that suit No. 153/1980 which was sought to converted was initially flied challenging the status of Swami Har Shankaranand as Mahant of Math "Garhwa Ghat" and the High Court vide judgment dated 15-5-2002 passed in W.P. No. 46291 of 2000 has quashed the entire proceedings of suit No. 153/1980. Therefore at present suit No. 153/1980 is not pending, hence under the aforesaid circumstances it is quite clear that the appellant Premanand is not Mahant of Math "Garhwa Ghat" hence he cannot be said to be an aggrieved party as well as does not have any locus to maintain the 'aforesaid party as well as does not have any locus to maintain the aforesaid appeal. Swami Premanand who had flied the appeal is now dead and there is a dispute regarding the succession of Swami Premanand, but once it Is held that Swami Premanand has no locus or grievance to maintain the aforesaid appeal, therefore after the death of Swami Premanand who is the appellant in this case, there IS nothing on record to indicate as to how the person claiming succession to late Swami Premanand is aggrieved by the Impugned order. 11. There is no dispute that Swami Premanand was not a party to the proceedings before the Court below. The right to file the appeal is creation of Statute only. The appeal may be filed even by a person who IS not a party to the proceeding before the Court below but In any case such appeal may be filed after seeking leave of the court by filing an application before the Appellate Court in this regard. The Hon'ble Apex Court In a decision Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha Versus M/s Golcha Properties Pvt. ltd. reported In A.I.R. 1971 S.C. Page 374 has held that "It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment." 12. It is thus quite clear that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the court below and although he could have filed the appeal but he would have to show that he Is an aggrieved person by the order passed by the court below and he could have certainly filed the appeal but only after seeking leave of the court by filing an application in this regard. In the instant case the appellant had neither filed any application for seeking permission to the leave of the court nor has shown before the Appellate Court that he is an aggrieved person by the Impugned order passed by the court below. 13. In the instant case the appellant had neither filed any application for seeking permission to the leave of the court nor has shown before the Appellate Court that he is an aggrieved person by the Impugned order passed by the court below. 13. Under the practice consistently followed by the English Courts which is just and equitable practice and Is no way inconsistent with the doctrine that a right of appeal can only be created by Statute, a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal If he Is affected by the judgment, decree or order .of the court below, provided he obtains leave from the court of appeal. Therefore, in the instant case we are of the view that the appellant has firstly no locus to file this appeal and secondly in absence of seeking any permission to leave of the Court by the appellant this appeal is liable to be dismissed on these Counts. 14. Further a perusal of .the Impugned judgment and order passed by the Addl. District Judge While granting permission to sell the property in question reveals that the trial Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the agreed sale consideration is more than even the amount calculated on the basis of the circle rate which Rs. 800/- per Sq. M. and the sale consideration for which the land was sold is not less than its market value. Therefore, we do not find anything perverse in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below. The appeal thus does not bear any force on merit also. 15. Under the facts and Circumstances narrated above, we are of the definite opinion that this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The Impugned judgment and order dated 13-10-1992, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 41/1990 and O.S. No. 5/1991 is hereby confirmed.