The right of possession is inheritable, and the requirements for successfully becoming a legal representative must be met, as highlighted in the Code of Civil Procedure.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code) is directed against the order dated 30.9.1981 passed by the Executing Court, Sangrur, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for impleadment of legal representatives of Amar Dass, Chela Bishan Dass, Dera Jai Ram Dass, Mandi Wali Gali, Sangrur (decree holder).

2. Brief facts necessary to solve the legal controversy raised in this petition may briefly be noticed. One Amar Dass, Decree holder filed a civil suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 88 dated 25.5.1977 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession and also from taking forcible possession of the suit land. On 17.5.1978, the suit was decreed by the trial court and defendants were restrained from taking forcible possession in respect of the suit land except in process of law. The suit land has been detailed in the head note of the plaint. The appeal filed before the learned Additional District Judge against the afore-mentioned judgement and decree was also dismissed on 19.9.1979. Thereafter afore-mentioned Decree holder Amar Dass filed execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code on 30.10.11979 alleging that the respondent-judgment debtors have been trying to obstruct his possession. However, the Decree holder Amar Dass died on 21.12.1979.

3. After the death of the Decree holder Amar Dass his three sons namely Pawan Kumar Dass, Paramjit Kumar Dass and Ranjit Kumar Dass filed an application on 31.10.1979 claiming that they were legal representatives of the deceased decree holder. It was averred in the application that the decree holder had executed a registered Will dated 20.6.1979 and had appointed Pawan Kumar Dass, Paramjit Kumar Dass and Ranjit Kumar Dass as Mohatmim, Kuthari and Bhandari respectively of Dera Baba Jai Ram Dass. It was also asserted that Bekh of Bairagi and Sadhus in its assembly on 2.1.1980 had confirmed Pawan Kumar Dass as Mohatmim Mahant of the Dera. It is still further claimed that deceased decree holder, in a regular ceremony appointed Pawan Kumar Dass, Paramjit Kumar Dass and Ranjit Kumar Dass as Chelas conferring upon them the status of Mohatmim, Kuthari and Bhandari. With regard to possession, the petitioners claimed that Pawan Kumar Dass was in possession of the suit land as Mahant Mohatmim and other two petitioners help him in the administration of Dera. The judgment debtor-respondent (for brevity the Judgment Debtor) controverted the averments made by the petitioners by filing reply. However, there was no specific averment denying the possession of the petitioners.

4. The executing Court framed an issue to determined the question whether the petitioners were the legal representatives of deceased decree holder Amar dass and after recording evidence returned a finding that the petitioners could not be considered as legal representatives of the deceased Amar Dass decree holder. The findings of the trial court reads as under :

"The present applicant is the execution application filed by Amar Dass on the basis of the decree obtained by him against the JDs. In this decree Amar Dass was held not to be the Chela of Bishan Dass. Amar Dass did not plead in the suit that he was the Mahant of the Dera. He filed the suit only being the chela of Bishan Dass. Bishan Dass had expired much earlier than the filing of the suit on 25.5.76. Had Amar Dass been installed as the Mahant of the Dera before 25.5.76 after the death of Bishan Dass, it was automatic that Amar Dass had filed the suit as a Mahant of the Dera and not as the chela of the previous Mahant Bishan Dass. Since Amar Dass did not file the suit as a Mahant and only filed the same as a Chela, it would be axiomatic that while presenting the suit on 25.5.76, he was not the Mahant of the Dera but claiming himself only to be a chela, presented the suit. The office of Mahant is greater than the line of a Ch