JUDGEMENT S.N.Hussain, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by three defendants-respondents-appellants including appellant No. 1 Sheo Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned court of appeal below. 2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 123 of 1987, which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4 for declaration that the defendants were trespassers over the suit land, which belonged to the plaintiffs, who inherited it from their ancestors and also for recovery of possession, permanent injunction against the defendants and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Bhabhua vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.1991. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 13 of 1991, which was allowed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-1, Bhabhua vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.1993, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the claim and suit of the plaintiffs. 4. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court by filing the aforesaid S.A. No. 169 of 1993, which was heard under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) on 27.07.1993, whereafter substantial questions of law were framed and the case was directed to be placed for final hearing on 06.09.1993. The respondents appeared in the second appeal, but inspite of the aforesaid order, the case was not listed for hearing until 02.07.2008. 5. During the pendency of the second appeal, appellant No. 1 Shri Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary died on 10.03.1999, whereafter I.A. No. 7162 of 1999 was filed on 21.05.1999 by Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad for being substituted in his place claiming to be the Chela and successor of deceased appellant No. 1. Similarly I.A. No. 8089 of 1999 was filed on 28.06.1999 by Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh for being substituted in his place claiming to be the Chela and successor of deceased appellant No. 1. Plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4 filed their rejoinder claiming that both the aforesaid interlocutory applications be dismissed as the applicants of both of them were imposters and merely wanted to grab the suit land, which belonged to the respondents. 6. Plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4 filed their rejoinder claiming that both the aforesaid interlocutory applications be dismissed as the applicants of both of them were imposters and merely wanted to grab the suit land, which belonged to the respondents. 6. However, vide order dated 13.08.1999, this Court directed the said matter with regard to the legal representative of deceased appellant No. 1 to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal as there were two other appellants, namely, appellants No. 2 and 3 also, who were alive at that time. Much thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 4 filed I.A. No. 357 of 2005 claiming that deceased appellant No. 1 left behind no legal representative and there is no survival of cause of action in the instant second appeal, which has become incompetent and has abated. This interlocutory application also remained pending for being considered at the time of final hearing of the second appeal. 7. Subsequently, the heirs of appellants No. 2 and 3 filed I.A. No. 853 of 2005 stating that the said appellants had died and they did not claim any interest in the subject matter of this appeal and in that view of the matter prayed that the names of deceased appellants No. 2 and 3 be expunged. After hearing the matter, this Court allowed the said interlocutory application vide order dated 01.09.2006 and expunged the names of appellants No. 2 and 3 from the memorandum of the second appeal. 8. In the said circumstances, when this second appeal was taken up for final hearing on 02.07.2008, it was found that all the three appellants have already died, out of whom names of appellants No. 2 and 3 were already expunged. But so far the sole remaining appellant No. 1 was concerned, this Court found that he had died on 20.03.1999 and for substitution in his place, two interlocutory applications bearing I.A No. 7162 of 1999 and I.A. No. 8089 of 1999 had been filed by Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad and Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh, respectively, both claiming to be the Chelas and successors of deceased appellant No. 1 on the basis of evidences, both oral and documentary. Hence this Court sent the matter to the learned court below i.e. Subordinate Judge-I, Bhabhua for determining the said question with respect to legal representative of deceased appellant No. 1 under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code and for sending its findings with reasons in that regard within two months after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence produced by them in that regard. 9. After a few extensions granted by this Court, the learned court below, namely, learned Subordinate Judge-I, Bhabhua, finally determined the said question of legal representative of deceased appellant No. 1 vide order dated 04.12.2008 and sent the same to this Court. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that the learned court below considered the matter including the pleadings and evidences of the parties in detail with regard to the aforesaid question as per directions of this Court and, thereafter, arrived at the conclusion that Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh was successor and legal representative of deceased appellant No. 1 Swami Sheo Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary. 10. Against the aforesaid order of the learned court below dated 04.12.2008, Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad (applicant of I.A. No. 7162 of 1999) filed an objection on 09.01.2009, claiming that the learned court below had wrongly relied upon the evidences produced by Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh (applicant of I.A. No. 8089 of 1999) and did not rely upon the evidences produced by the objector Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad. A counter affidavit was filed on 19.01.2009 by Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh (applicant of I.A. No. 8089 of 1999) to the aforesaid objection filed by Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad (applicant of I.A. No. 7162 of 1999) stating that the learned court below had considered the pleadings and evidences of the parties in detail and only thereafter had rightly come to the finding that Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh was the successor and legal representative of deceased appellant No. 1 Sheo Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary. 11. After hearing the parties at length and after perusing the materials produced by them with respect to their respective claims, it transpires that the learned court below while passing its order dated 04.12.2008 had considered the matter in detail taking into account all the pleadings and evidences, both oral and documentary, produced by both the applicants. 11. After hearing the parties at length and after perusing the materials produced by them with respect to their respective claims, it transpires that the learned court below while passing its order dated 04.12.2008 had considered the matter in detail taking into account all the pleadings and evidences, both oral and documentary, produced by both the applicants. It further transpires that the objection against the said order of the learned court below raised by Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad (applicant of I.A. No. 7162 of 1999) and the counter affidavit supporting the said order of the learned court below filed by Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh (applicant of I.A. No. 8089 if 1999) filed in this Court are elaborate, dealing with each and every points of pleadings and evidences, both oral and documentary, on behalf of both the parties, contradicting each other. 12. Rule 5 of Order XXII of the Code provides that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased party, such question shall be determined by the Court. But the law is well-settled that while determining the said question, elaborate proceedings, like those in a civil suit, need not be held because the determination is only for the purposes of the case being conducted and does not determine any right to succession. Reference in this regard may be made to decisions of this Court as well as of Allahabad High Court in case of Dukh Haran Tewary and Ors. v. Dulhin Bihasa Kuer and Anr., and in case of Nand Rani v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pilibhit. 13. Furthermore, as per the settled principle of law, the order of the learned court below dated 04.12.2008 or any order passed by this Court under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code cannot be res judicata, nor would create any bar for any court to try any suit or issue with regard the question of inheritance, succession, legal representative of deceased appellant No. 1 and the parties will clearly be at liberty to file a suit for that purpose. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of three High Courts in case of Mangat and Anr. v. Surya, in case of Koneridoss v. N. Subbiah Naidu and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1975 Mad 124 and in case of Ram Kalap v. Banshi Dhar and Ors.. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of three High Courts in case of Mangat and Anr. v. Surya, in case of Koneridoss v. N. Subbiah Naidu and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1975 Mad 124 and in case of Ram Kalap v. Banshi Dhar and Ors.. 14. Substitution of a person in a suit or appeal or in any such proceeding in place of a deceased party does not by itself create any right of heirship in favour of the person substituted, hence efforts have to be made to bring on record all necessary or proper parties for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit between the parties thereto. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in case of Jag Narain Singh v. Mathura Prasad Singh reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 650 . Furthermore, Punjab & Haryana High Court had also held in case of S. Charanjit Singh v. Bharatinder Singh, that in such intensely contested cases proper course would be to implead both the claimants under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code. 15. It is also apparent from the record of this case that due to the respective claims of the two applicants mentioned above, both of them have been substituted in place of appellant No. 1 Sheo Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary in Execution Case No. 06 of 1995, which is pending before the learned Munsif, Bhabhua for execution of the decree of the lower appellate court, which is under challenge in this second appeal, but has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 04.09.1996. 16. At the time of argument, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted that due to the elaborate and exhaustive claims of both the applicants, it would be proper to substitute both the applicants of I.A. No. 7162 of 1999 and I.A. No. 8089 of 1999, namely, Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad and Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh in place of deceased appellant No. 1 in the instant second appeal. It may be stated here that respondents No. 1 to 4 were plaintiffs of the suit, out of which the instant second appeal has arisen and hence they are dominus litus for the instant litigation and their submissions with respect to impleadment of the parties, specially in the present situation, cannot be held to be insignificant, inane or insipid. 17. Keeping in view the respective claims of both the applicants as well as the respondents, it is quite apparent that if one of the applicants is substituted in place of deceased appellant No. 1 Sheo Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary, the other applicant will have a liberty to claim that the decision in this second appeal was not binding upon him and, accordingly, there will no finality to the decision of this Court with respect to the claim of the defendants-appellants (now applicants) against plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4 with regard to the suit land and the said plaintiffs-respondents would unnecessarily suffer due to none of their fault. 18. So far the question of succession, inheritance or legal representative is concerned, none of the two applicants would gain much even if he succeeds in being substituted in place of deceased appellant No. 1 as his substitution in this appeal would not by itself create any right of heirship in his favour and it would always be subject to the determination of his right to succession in a civil suit, specially when both the said claimants are so intensely contesting the matter on the basis of their respective elaborate pleadings and exhaustive evidence, both oral and documentary. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels it necessary and proper to dispose of all the three applications, namely, I.A. No. 7162 of 1999, I.A. No. 8089 of 1999 and I.A. No. 357 of 2005 with a direction that both the applicants, namely, Swami Triyoganand alias Ram Narayan Prasad (applicant of I.A. No. 7162 of 1999) and Mahanth Satyanand alias Ramjee Singh (applicant of I.A. No. 8089 of 1999) be substituted in place of deceased appellant No. 1 Sheo Dharmanand alias Deo Shankar Tewary. Both of them will be entitled to be represented through their respective counsel and also to raise their respective arguments with respect to the subject matter of the suit at the time of final hearing of this second appeal but they shall not be entitled to raise any point which may be contrary to the stand, pleadings and evidence of the original defendant-appellant No. 1.