The legal representative, as defined in Sec.2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, includes a person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. The court also found that an order obtained by fraud is a nullity.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the revision application against the order dated 11.12.2006 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1989/2 of 1989 by the Additional District Judge, 1st Gopalganj by which he has allowed the prayer of the defendant-opposite parties and set aside the order of injunction dated 9.1.1989 passed in Title Suit No. 114/1988 by Subordinate Judge-V, Gopalganj.

3. Title Suit No. 114/1988 was filed by plaintiff no. 1, Mahanth Ramchandra Das Jee (since deceased) and the present petitioner Mahanth Bhikhari Das is plaintiff no. 2 as Chela of said plaintiff no. 1 far a declaration that the properties mentioned in Schedule-II of the plaint are the personal properties of the plaintiffs and it was not the property of public trust and the act of the defendant Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board in constituting a committee with respect to the said properties is wholly void, illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs was that the original spiritual ancestor of the plaintiff Baba Nayak Ram Das Jee was the resident of Madhopur and after death of his wife he devoted his time in worshipping lord Vishnu and installed an Idol of Lord Vishnu in his house for private worship and thereafter he built a temple by the side of his house in which the Idol of Lord Shiva and other deities were installed out of the proceeds of his property and he also created the Institution of Chelaship and after his death his successor one after the other inherited the properties which was later on called as Math and the plaintiff No. 1 Ramchandra Das Jee was the last guru. The plaintiff no. 2 was described in the plaint as a Chela of plaintiff no. 1 who was looking after the properties of plaintiff no. 1. The said Title Suit was filed on 16.8.1988 and apart from the relief of declaration, relief of injunction was also claimed therein but two days after the filing of the Title Suit an amendment application was filed for deleting the relief of injunction and the same was also allowed. Subsequently, two days thereafter on 20.8.1988 an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs praying for temporary injunction in the matter. The admitted fact is that the plaintiff no. 1 died on 5.10.1988 and thereafter an application was filed by plaintiff no. 2 on 17.12.1988 for expunging the name of plaintiff no. 1. However, the said application is still pending.

5. The application for injunction was heard. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 namely, the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board and its Chairman appeared on 17.12.1988 and filed an application for dismissing the suit as not maintainable in terms of the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By order dated 9.1.1989 the learned Subordinate Judge-5, Gopalganj passed a composite order rejecting the petition regarding maintainability filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and allowing the injunction petition filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. Against the same, the defendant-opposite parties filed Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1989/2 of 1989 which was allowed by order dated 6.7.19.89 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj and the order dated 9.1.1989 passed by the court below was set aside. Against the same the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 1340 of 1989 in which the principal issue raised was that the appeal had not been, as a matter of fact, filed by the Religious Trust Board but by other persons purporting to have filed it on its behalf and in this regard various allegations were made. By order dated 22.3.1994, a learned Single Judge Bench of this Court allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order dated 6.7.1989 and remitted the matter to the appellate court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law holding that the question which was raised in the revision application as to whether the appeal has been filed by the defendant Religious Trust Board or not has not been considered in th