Judgment:
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.
1. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of reversal.
2. On 13.7.1988 the following question of law was formulated:
The sole question of law which arises for determination in this appeal as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as mentioned by the Courts below, it can be said that a valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the State Government or not.
3. The plaintiffs/respondents filed this suit for declaration of title in respect of Schedules A and B land and also for declaration that the survey entry with respect to the suit lands in the name of defendants/appellants is wrong and illegal. By the judgment dated 4.2.1982, the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable as notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has not been legally proved. The other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. No cross appeal was filed by the defendants/appellants against the said findings. The plaintiffs/ respondents filed appeal in the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court reversed the said finding with regard to the notice under Section 80, C.P.C. It held that admittedly the defendants/appellants received Section 80, CPC notice-Ext. A and only because its contents did not tally fully with a copy of the notice produced on behalf of the plaintiffs as Ext. 3, it could not be held that the requirements of Section 80, CPC was not fulfilled. It held that in Paragraph 16 of the plaint, it was asserted on behalf of the plaintiffs' that notice under Section 80, CPC was sent on 21.11.1978, and therefore there was no discrepancy with regard to date in Ext. A and Ext. 3. Regarding the numbering of the reliefs, the difference was that in Ext. 3, reliefs portion have been numbered as a, b, c and d and in Ext. A the numbering is as 1, 2, 3 and 4. It further held that it is true that Ext. 3 is not carbon copy of the Ext. A, but in both the notices the relevant facts have been mentioned and therefore the suit could not be held to be.not maintainable for not filing of the carbon copy of the notice under Section 80, CPC as the requirement of Section 80, C.P.C. was about service of valid notice and it was admitted position that notice under Section 80, CPC was served.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find no reason to interfere with the said findings of lower appellate Court holding that the suit was maintainable. Regarding the question framed, it has to be held that a valid notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served on the State Government.
5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.