JUDGMENT S.N. Katju, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of his right in the plot in dispute. It was contested by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the plaintiff was never a subtenant nor was he in possession of the plot in dispute in 1356F. or 1359F. The court below has recorded the following findings: "Therefore, from the whole evidence on the record I come to the definite conclusion that the plaintiff has been occupying this land as a sub-tenant for a long time and he was also in actual cultivatory, possession in 1359F. and so after the abolition of zamindari he became an adhivasi and after 30-10-1954 has become Sirdar and Bhumidhari rights of the contesting defendant, if any, have come to an end. Therefore, for the reasons given above, he is entitled to the declaration claimed." 2. I agree with the aforesaid findings of the Court below. The court below further found that the suit was not barred for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The State of U.P. had been impleaded as a defendant in the suit but it did not file any written-statement nor put in appearance at any stage of the proceedings of the suit. The court below expressed the view that under the circumstances it must be held that when the State had waived the plea of want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. It was not open to the other defendant to raise that plea. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the State had been impleaded and a notice under Section 80 to be sent to the State of U.P. the mere circumstance that the State of U.P. did not contest the suit could not prevent the defendant from raising the bar under this section when admittedly no such notice had been given to the State of U.P. The provisions of Section 80, C.P.C. are primarily meant for the protection of the authority concerned and if that authority chooses not to raise the plea of want of notice or does not contest the suit then it is not open to any other defendant to raise the plea of want of notice under Section 80 of the Code. A Division Bench of this Court in The District Board, Banaras v. Ghurhu Rai, AIR 1956 ALL 680 : 1956 A.L.J. 872 had to consider the effect of the provisions of Section 192 (1) of the District Board's Act. The aforesaid provisions are similar to the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. In that case no proper notice under Section 192(1) had been given to the District Board. The District Board, however, did not raise any plea based on the defective nature of the notice. It was observed as follows: In other words the District Board which alone was entitled to the notice gave up its defence based on the defective nature of the notice. It took no defence whatsoever to the effect that notice containing the actual amount of compensation was not given. Nor did it raise this plea in the memorandum of appeal which it preferred in the lower appellate court. The same remarks apply to the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal preferred in this Court by the District Board. We have no doubt that, in the circumstances of the case, the Board waived its right based on the ground of notice." It further observed:- "We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is open to a defendant for whose benefit a notice is prescribed by law to waive it. We have held above that in the circumstances of the present case the District Board has by its conduct waived the notice. In the circumstances the only ground on which the claim for compensation could fall disappears." 3. Since in the present case the State of Uttar Pradesh which alone was competent to raise the plea of want of notice under Section 80 of the Code did not contest the suit it would follow that it alone could raise the plea of want of notice under Section 80 and it was not open to the other defendant to contend that the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the court below. 4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.