JUDGMENT

S.N. Katju, J. - These are two connected appeals preferred by the plaintiffs arising out of suits for declaration that they are Sirdars in possessions of the plots in suits and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the plots in dispute. Defendants No. 1 was Mr. W.O. Holdsworth who was the former zamindar and the second defendant is the Gram Sabha Panchrukhi. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the land had been settled with them since over thirty years by defendant No. 1 and they had been in possession of the plots in suit and had becomes its sirdars and bhumidhars. It was alleged that the defendants had no concern with the plots in suit but the Patwari had not entered the plaintiff's name in the revenue papers and they had applied for the correction of names in the revenue court but it had directed the plaintiff to seek redress in the civil Court and hence the suits in appeal.

2. The suits were contested, inter alia, on the ground that they were barred by Section 80 of the code of Civil Procedure and that the land was Banjar and it had not been settled with the plaintiff and on the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act it had vested in the second defendant, viz., the Gram Sabha.

3. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suits. It held that the suits were not barred by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that it was not argued before the trial court that instead of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions of Section 106 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 were attracted and since no notice under Section 106 had been served on defendant No. 2 the suits were not maintainable. The court below on appeal while affirming the finding of the trial Court that the suit were not covered by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that the provisions of Section 106 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 were attracted and since no notice had been served under that section the suits were liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The court below expressed the view that under Section 15(s) the Gaon Panchayat had to fulfil any other obligation imposed by or under the Act or any other law on a Gaon Sabha and under Section 118 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act a Gaon Sabha had been entrusted with the superintendence, management and control of land and therefore, notice under Section 106 was imperative. The court below, however, did not specifically mention as to what was that particular act which was done by the Gaon Sabha which attracted the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. It may be pointed out that before the revenue authorities the Gaon Sabha did not say that the plaintiffs had no right to the land in suits and it had vested in the Gaon Sabha. On the other hand, the Gaon Sabha did not at all dispute the claim of the plaintiffs in the mutation it could not be said that the provisions of Section 106 would be attracted. Section 106 says that "no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against a Gaon Sabha ...........or against a member or officer or servant thereof............or against any person acting under the direction of any of these bodies or persons for anything done or purporting to have been done in official capacity under this Act." The plea of the bar of the suit in the absence of a proper notice under Section 106 could be raised where it is instituted against "a member or officer or servant or against any person acting under the direction of such persons for anything done or purporting to have been done in official capacity under this Act." The plaintiff grievance was not against the Gaon Sabha or against any of its officers for anything done or purporting to have been done in their official capacity under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Whatever grievance the plaintiff had was against the revenue authorities for not making proper entries in the