Ramesam, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit was for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to him and defendants 3 and 4 and for a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, who was the Official Receiver of the Ramnad District, from selling them as the properties of the 2nd defendant in I.P. No. 9 of 1917 on his file. The Official Receiver advertised the suit properties for sale on 10th November, 1924. On the 5th November the plaintiff sent a notice of suit to the 1st defendant and the suit was filed on the 7th November, 1924. The Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dismissed the suit on the ground that two months have not elapsed before the filing of the suit and after the giving of notice. The plaintiff in appeal contends that a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, is unnecessary. He concedes that the Official Receiver is a public servant but argues that the suit is not in respect of an act purporting to be done in his official capacity. His argument is that the suit is only in respect of a threatened act and not in respect of an act which was begun, and therefore the section does not apply. This contention of the appellant is s