JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the plaintiff was the sirdar of the land in dispute alongwith the trees standing their on. The plaintiff claimed sirdari rights by virtue of his being a hereditary tenant of the plot in dispute. It was stated that the defendants got their names wrongly entered in the papers which led to the filing of the suit. The defence was that the suit was barred by section 42 of the Specific Relict Act. The defendants further set up their own possession for the last 12 year, but the written statement did not specify what rights, if any, they claimed in the land in dispute. 2. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff not being in possession the suit was barred by Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. That court gave no finding on the plaintiff's right in the land in suit. It is how the plaintiff has come in appeal. 3. Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the suit having been filed under the provisions of Sec. 229-B of the Act the provisions of Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act did not apply. He has also attacked the findings of the lower appellate court on the question of possession. Sri A. Banerji, learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the judgment of the lower appellate court. 4. The only point which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act applied to a declaratory suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 5. Secs. 229 to 229-C make provisions for declaratory suits and they lay down as follows :- "229. 4. The only point which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the provisions of Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act applied to a declaratory suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 5. Secs. 229 to 229-C make provisions for declaratory suits and they lay down as follows :- "229. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the Gaon Samaj may institute a suit against any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land for the declaration of the right of such person in such land, and the court in its discretion may make a declaration of the right of such person, and the Gaon Samaj need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the Gaon Samaj being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 229-A, Where any person against whom a decree or order of ejectment from a holding or any portion thereof or from any land vested in a Gaon Samaj or Local Authority has been executed under the provisions of this Act or the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, reenters or attempts to re-enter otherwise than under or in accordance with the provisions of law upon such holding or land he shall be presumed to have done so with the intent to intimidate or annoy the person in possession or the Land Management Committee or Local Authority as the case may be within the meaning of Sec. 441 of the Indian Penal Code. 229-B(1) Any person claiming to be an asami whether exclusively or jointly with any person may sue the landholder - (1) for a declaration that he is an asami of the holding or for a declaration of his share therein. (2) In any suit under sub-Sec. (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the land-holder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-Sec. (1) and (2) shall mutatis mulandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar or sirdar, as the case may be with the amendment that for the word `land-holder' the words `the State Government and the Gaon Samaj' are substituted therein. (3) The provisions of sub-Sec. (1) and (2) shall mutatis mulandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar or sirdar, as the case may be with the amendment that for the word `land-holder' the words `the State Government and the Gaon Samaj' are substituted therein. 229-C. A Gaon Samaj or a bhumidhar or Sirdar of any land may sue any person claiming to be an asami of such land for a declaration of the rights of such person." 6. Sec. 229 relates to declaratory suits filed by Gaon Samaj and the proviso requires that if the Gaon Samaj can seek a further relief that relief must be sought and no court shall grant the Gaon Samaj a mere declaration. But such a provision does not exist either in Sec. 229-B or in Sec. 229-C. Sec. 229-B (1) entitles a person claiming to be an asami to file a suit for a declaration while sub-Sec. (3) entitles a bhumidhar or a sirdar to seek a similar declaration as can be sought by an asami. This subsection was added by the Amending Act XVIII of 1956. Sec. 229-C on the other hand entitles the Gaon Samaj or a bhumidhar or a sirdar to seek a declaration of the rights of any person who claims to be an asami. No provision has been made either in Sec. 229-B or in Sec. 229-C like the one made in the proviso to Sec. 229 stating that if a further relief can be asked for, a suit for mere declaration shall not be maintainable. Obviously the intention of the Legislature in making a distinction between Secs. 229 on the one hand and 229-B and 229-C on the other hand was to make a suit for mere declaration maintainable. Had it been the intention that a suit for mere declaration will not be maintainable a provision like the proviso to Sec. 229 would have been made under these Sections as well. In no case Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act can apply to suits for declaration under Sec. 229-B or 229-C. That section is limited in its application to suits covered by that section and not to any declaration which is permissible under any special or local law. In no case Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act can apply to suits for declaration under Sec. 229-B or 229-C. That section is limited in its application to suits covered by that section and not to any declaration which is permissible under any special or local law. Having regard to the provisions of Sec. 229-B it was not necessary for the plaintiff to seek any further relief other than a declaration and consequently the lower appellate court was wrong in holding that the suit was not maintainable under Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. 7. This appeal must, therefore, succeed and the case must be sent back to the lower appellate court for re-hearing of the appeal. 8. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the case is remanded to the District Judge, Meerut, with the direction to readmit the appeal to its original number and dispose it of either himself or get it disposed of after transfer to some Civil Judge, according to law in the light of the observations made above. Costs here shall abide the result.