A registered society can only express its will by a formal resolution. In the absence of a resolution authorizing the filing of an appeal, the appeal was rightly rejected by the appellate court.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court confirming on appeal the order of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing the plaintiffs appeal on a preliminary objection that it had not been properly filed by a duly authorised agent before him.

2. Murti Shri Raghunath Ji installed in the temple situate at Jagadhri brought a suit in November 1964 through Dharam Asthan Rakhsa Committee (Registered) Jagadhri, hereinafter called that Committee, for a perpetual injunction against Joginder Singh and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, II Class at Jagadhri. The suit was contested by the defendants and one of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of defendant No. 8 was that the Committee had no locus standi to filed the suit, as it was not a legally constituted Mohatmim of the property of theMurti and as such could not institute the suit on behalf of the latter. As a result of this pleading, issue No. 3 was framed and it was "whether Shri Dharam Asthan Committee has the right to file this suit." This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and after the trial of the suit, it, was partly decreed by the trial Court. Against that decision the Murti, in the manner, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the defendants that the appeal had not been properly instituted. this objection prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge, and he dismissed the appeal on that ground alone without going into the merits of the case. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal in this Court and it came up for hearing before Sarkaria, J., who confirmed the order of the learned Additional District Judge, and dismissed the second appeal against that decision, the present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. Dharm Asthan Rakhsa Committee is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 . The plaint in this case was signed by Brij Lal and Rameshwar Das, Secretary and President respectively of the said Committee, and Mr. Jagdish Parshad, Advocate, in whose favour both these gentlemen had given the power of attorney. Along with the plaint, was filed a copy of the resolution passed by the Committee on 21st October, 1964, to the effect that legal action be taken against the defendants, and Brij Lal and Rameshwar Das, the Secretary and the President of Committee, were authorised in that behalf. The objection raised by defendant No. 8, which led to the framing of issue No. 3, referred to above, was that the Committee had no locus standi to file the suit, because it was not a legally constituted Manager of the property in dispute owned by the plaintiff. The suit was partly decreed as already mentioned above.

4. So far as the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was concerned, it was also instituted through the Committee, but the memorandum of appeal was signed by Mr. Lakshmi Chand, Advocate, only, who had been given by Brij Lal and Rameshwar Dass, Secretary and President respectively of the Committee. The objection raised by the defendants before the learned Additional District Judge was that the Committee had not passed anr resolution to the effect that an appeal be filed against the order of the trial Judge and besides nobody had been authorised for that purpose. The learned Judge was of the view that the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant could not continue with the appeal, unless he could show that a legally authorised person had been appointed to conduct the proceedings in his Court. He referred to the provisions of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act and held that if any of the officials of the Committee was to be chosen for filing the appeal, a reference must be made to the rules and regulations of the Committee in order to find out whether they authorised him to do so. If there was no such rule, the governing