ORDER
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This will dispose of SAO No. 8 of 1990 and Civil Revision No. 2662 of 1989.
2. One Ekam Gir filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction against Harjinder Gir, claiming himself to be Gur Bhai of Lachhmi Gir, who was stated to be Chela of Mukhtiar Gir.
3. On contest, the suit was decreed. Harjinder Gir preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, Hajinder Gir died on 23rd August, 1980. Dula Gir appellant in SAO No. 8 of 1990 and petitioner in Civil Revision No. 2662 of 1989, made an application for being substituted in place of Harjinder Gir, claiming himself to be Mahant of Dera and Chela of Harinder Gir. This application was also contested The first appellate Court thought it fit to get a report from the trial Court The trial Court after recording the evidence, submitted its report to the first appellate Court. The trial Court infact, found that Dula Gir has established on record that he is entitled to be substituted in place of Harjinder Gir. Before this application or the appeal could be considered by the first appellate Court, Chetan Gir who had come in place of Ekam Gir on record during the pendency of suit, also died Harchand Gir (respondent herein) made an application for being brought on record, claiming himself to be Mahant of Dera and Chela of Chetan Gir. The first appellate Court called for the report from the trial Court. On 5th January, 1985, the trial Court vide its report held that the respondent is not proved to be Mahant and Chela. When the appeal was taken up for consideration by the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court did not agree with the report of the trial Court and thus found that Dula Gir has failed to prove that he is the legal representative of the deceased appellant and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been abated This order is now being challenged in the appeal as well as in the revision petition.
4. It is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff as well as the defendant have died. The plaintiff as well as the defendant were claiming Mahantship to the Dera. This was a personal right which died with them. The persons who are staking their claim in place of plaintiff as well as the defendant, have failed to prove that they are entitled to be substituted in their place as their legal representatives. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal as well as in the revision petion. Both the counsel have stated at the Bar that the suit land is in possession of the Receiver under the orders of the Court. Since the suit stands dismissed, the Receiver shall be allowed to retain the possession of the said land till any person gets a declaration from a competent Court with regard to his status as Mahant. Only in that eventuality, the Receiver shall be asked to put that person into possession of, the suit land, in terms of any order or decree, if passed. However, it is made clear that any finding given in the suit or at the time of deciding the applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of plaintiff as well as defendant, or any observation made herein, shall not be taken to be as res judicata.
5. Consequently, the appeal and the revision petition are disposed of. No costs.