Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the Plaintiffs were not liable to be ejected from the property in dispute. The facts briefly stated are as follows: The property in dispute consists of certain Kotharis, a verandah and an open space in front thereof in Sarai Kham, Mohalla Azam Nagar. The Plaintiffs claimed that these Kotharis had been in their possession from time immemorial, rather, since the time of the Moghul Emperors, that the Defendant Municial Board of Bareilly had obtained certain decrees for ejectment from those Kothries of certain persons not parties to the suit, that the Plaintiffs were not bound by the same and were not liable to be ejected in the execution of the aforesaid decrees. The Plaintiffs filed objections under Order 21, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure. But those objections were dismissed. Hence they filed the present suit under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE suit had been dismissed on the ground that no proper notice as required by Section 326 of the Municipalities Act was given prior to the institution of the suit. The Plaintiffs claimed that they had given a notice which is printed at page 33 of the paper book. The Defendant Municipal Board denied that such a notice had ever been given and alleged that all that had been sent to them was a notice printed at page 31 of the paper book. The Court below went into the evidence and held that no notice as printed at page 33 was ever sent to the Municipal Board and that the only notice sent to the Municipal Board was one printed at page 31. We have no hesitation in upholding the finding of the lower court on this point. The next question to consider is whether the notice printed at page 31 can be treated as a valid under notice Section 326 of the Municipalities Act. The notice printed at page 31 is signed by three persons i.e. Hafiz Mohammad Ali, Salim Ullah and Wali Mohammad. One of them only namely Hafiz Mohammad Ali was the Plaintiff in the present case. No notice seems to have been given by the other five Plaintiffs in the suit. In the notice it was stated that the Municipal Board had filed suits for dispossession in respect of the Kothris against certain Bhatiyaras and had obtained decree thereof, that on this pretext the employees of the Municipal Board want to dispossess all the Bhatiyaras, that the Bhatiyaras called upon the chairman to pursue their papers but no heed was paid to them, that the Sarai was in possession of the Bhatiyaras since the time of the Nawabs of Oudh and that if no attention was paid to them they could be compelled to file a complaint in the court of the Collector of Bareilly. They further prayed that they might be informed of necessary orders through Hafiz Mohammad Ali. Then it was added that in their case is not heard by the Collector they will file a suit in the civil court, and that the notice was issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 326 of the Municipalities Act.
(3.) NOW this notice cannot be considered to be a proper notice under Section 326 of the Municipalities Act. Section 326 requires that "no suit shall be instituted against a Board, or against a member, officer or servant of a Board, in respect of an act done or purporting to have been done in its or his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of a Board, left at its office, and, in the case of a Member, Officer or servant, delivered to him or left at his office or place of abode, explicitly stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed, and the name and place of abode of the intended Plaintiff, and the application shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left." In the present case, as already pointed out, the name and place of only one of the intended Plaintiffs was given. The other five Plaintiffs were not mentioned in the notice. The cause of action which appears in the plaint arose as a result of the dismissal of their objection under Order 21, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure. The notice under discussion seems to have been given much before those proceedings took place. The nature of the relief sought in the plaint is not mentioned in the notice. It cannot, therefore, be said that the notice complied with the provisions of Section 326 of the Municipalities Act.;