The possession of an agent or servant which is permissive cannot give him a locus standi as against his principal or master in a proceeding under Sec.145.

H.K.Chaudhuri, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order dated 4-6-57 passed by Sri J. P. Gupta, a Magistrate of the first class at Gopalganj by which, in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the C. P. C. he held opposite party Bhagwan Bhagat, who was second party in that proceeding, to be in peaceful possession of the di-sputed land and ordered him to continue in possession until ousted by a competent Court.

2. The dispute relates to three plots, bearing Nos. 594, 595 and 1457 in village Chanawe. At Turki in the district of Muzaffarpur there is an As-thai. Subordinate to this Asthal there are Asthals at different places, viz., Chanawe, Bhujali and Har-bansa. It is undisputed that all these Asthals are subordinate to the principal Asthal at Turki. One Narsingh Das was appointed Mahant of Turki Muth an 1937. It is beyond controversy that he was in possession of all properties attached to the principal as well as the subordinate Asthals. On 17-12-51 Narsingh Das executed a deed of nomination whereby he nominated petitioner Girjanandan Bhagat, one of his disciples, as his successor. This was followed by another document dated 15-9-52, whereby Narsingh Das appointed Girjanandan Bhagat as Mahant of Turki and the subordinate Asthals. In due course, the name of Girjanandan Bhagat was mutated in Register D and in the landlords Sarishta. The case of the petitioners is that Bhagwan Das, another disciple of Narsingh Das, had been deputed by the latter to look after the properties at Chanawe as his agent or Karinda. After the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 as the next Mahant Bhagwan Das is said to have shown hostility towards him as a result of which there were several litigations between them. Eventually Girjanandan Bhagat deputed Balak Das, petitioner No. 1, to Chanawe Muth to look after the properties there as his agent in place of Bhagwan Das. This led to friction and eventually the present proceeding under Sec.145 was drawn up.

3. The opposite party No. 1 denied that the petitioner No. 2 had been appointed the Mahant of Turki. He claimed that after the abdication of Narsingh Das he himself was selected Mahant of Turki Mutb. He contends that he has been in possession of these properties on his own account.

4. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials on the record, came to the conclusion that it was Bhagwan Das who was in possession of the property. He further held that the petitioners case that Bhagwan Das was in possession of the properties as his Karinda was unacceptable. On these findings he made the rule absolute against the petitioners. Against this order the petitioners preferred an application in revision before the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Saran, who heard the application, declined to interfere with the order holding that the points urged by the petitioners did not justify reference of this case to this Court.

5. Mr. J. N. Verma appearing for the petitioners has urged two points. In the first place, he has contended that the property not having been clearly specified in the proceeding the order of the learned Magistrate is unenforceable on the ground! of vagueness and uncertainty. The next point urged by him was that even accepting the finding of the learned Magistrate as regards opposite party Bhag-wan Das being in actual physical possession of the property the court should have held that his possession was permissive and could not give him a locus standi as against his principal, viz., the Mahant of Turki.

6. So far as the first point is concerned, it appears that the police report stated the area of the disputed plots as eight bighas. The total area of these three plots, according to the record-of-rights, is 22 bighas, 17 kathas and 1 dhur. The contention of learned counsel is that as it is not clear which specific portion but of this area of 22 bighas 17 kathas and 1 dhur is in dispute there is likely to be considerable difficulty in enforcing t