A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is a quasi-corporation and can sue or be sued in its own name.

K.Ahmad, J.

1. The property in dispute in lliis case portions of plots 293 and 300 of village fatepur, measuring 78x 9, as detailed in Schedule C of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), these two plots along with plut No. 301 were originally the tenancy lands of two persons, namely, Maheshwar Singh, who has been examined in this case as P.W. 4, and Deonarain Singh (minor), son of Paru Smgh. Subsequently, on 3(j-9-ia4u, it is sam, these two tenants sold to the plaintiff, in the name or defendant No. 3 under a registered deed of sale of the even date the land in dispute and the whole of plot No. 301. The plaintiff has been since then using the land as private one for the convenience of the institutions set up near about the land by the society. The grievance made is that recently its right of exclusive user over tne land in suit as private lane has been challenged by defendants 1 and 2, who are father and son, and who alone have contested the suit. Hence the necessity for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the land as Kasta, as averred in the plaint.

2. It is not denied that in the survey rocord-of-rights these two plots were recorded in the name of Maheshwar Singh and Paru Singh as raiyats. But, there was a note made in the Remarks column in regard to plot No. 300 that it was then in possession of one Nuru Singn, who, as admitted by both the parties, was the father-in-law of Paru Singh. This entry standing by itself prima facie suggests that perhaps Nuru was a sub-tenant in plot No. 300 under the aforesaid two tenants. But, in defence, the case pleaded by the two contesting defendants was as if Nuru was himself a raiyat of plot No. 300, and, therefore, his title as a raiyat in regard to that plot was subsisting. Further, it is claimed that Nuru, as such, sold plot No. 300 to the defendants under a deed of sale dated 7-8-1948. According to the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff did not acquire any title in respect of plot No. 300 under the deed of sale dated 30-9-1940. Lastly, there was also a claim made that, in any view of the matter, the land in dispute was not a private Rasta, but a public Rasta open to the use of everybody in The locality. Then, there was also an objection raised on behaif of the defendants on the question of maintainability or the suit.

3. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that (1) the suit as framed is maintainable; (2) the plaintiff has title to the land in dispute; and (3) the disputed land is a private land and not a public one. On these findings, the suit hss been decreed by both the Courts below. The contesting defendants, therefore, have now come up in second appeal.

4. Mr. Rajgarhra appearing for the appellants has challenged all the aforesaid three findings concurrently arrived at by the Courts below. In support of the sub- mission made by Mr. Rajgarhia on the question of non-mamiainabitity of the suit, my attention has been drawn to the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 and also other sections of the Act. Sec. 6 of the Act relates to suits by and against societies registered under the Act and provides that

"every society registered under this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall he determined by the rules and regulations of the society, and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion; provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against the society, to sue tne president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant."

Relying on the provisions of this section, the submis-sion made by Mr. Rajgarhia is that any societ