ORDER :- This petition is directed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue, dismissing the suit of petitioner No. 1 as not maintainable. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and ejectment under Sections 229-B/209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the allegation that the land in dispute was the grove of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 used to purchase its fruits. He, in collusion with the Lekhpal, got his name wrongly recorded over the grove and was trying to interfere with the plaintiffs possession. It was prayed that the plaintiff be declared to be the bhumidhar in possession and, in the alternative, if the defendant be found to be in possession, he should be evicted. 3. In defence it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a legal person. It was not the bhumidhar. The land in dispute was not a grove. The land was given by the zamindar to the defendants brother, Vishwanath, and it was Viswanath who had planted the grove. As a result of a private partition in the family the grove fell to the defendants share. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The trial court repelled the various pleas in bar and decreed the suit. This decree was upheld in appeal. Aggrieved, the defendant went up to the Board of Revenue in second appeal. 5. The Board held that the plaintiff of the suit was the "Arya Ayurvedic Trust, through Sheo Prasad Verma, Honorary Secretary of the Trust". It held that a Trust is not a legal person and could not sue in its own name. In law the property vests in the Trustees and the Trustees alone could sue. The Board held that the principal point was as to whose name should appear as plaintiff. Since the Trust was not a legal person, the suit which was filed in the name of the Trust was incompetent. The Board held that it is the body of the Trustees which was competent to bring the suit and in whose name and on whose behalf the suit should have been filed. The Board did not go into the other points raised in second appeal and dismissed the suit on the technical ground that the correct person has not filed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court. 6. The Board did not go into the other points raised in second appeal and dismissed the suit on the technical ground that the correct person has not filed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court. 6. In view of Section 342 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Code of Civil Procedure applies to all proceedings under that Act. Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. provides that where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all such persons so interested. It is thus evident that even if it be the law that the trust is not, but the Trustees jointly are the owners of the property, and, therefore, all the Trustees are interested in the property, even so, under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. one or more of such persons can sue. In the present case, the Honorary Secretary of the Trust signed the plaint. His name appeared at the heading of the plaint as the person through whom the suit was being filed on behalf of the Trust. The Trust name, namely, Arya Ayurvedic Trust, may not be a legal person by itself, but it is obvious that the institution was described as such in the deed of trust. It in law was the popular name of the Trustees in whom the property had vested for executing the purposes of the Trust. When the plaint stated that the suit was by Arya Ayurvedic Trust through the Honorary Secretary, it was the Honorary Secretary who was suing on behalf of the Trustees of the institution which was popularly known as Arya Ayurvedic Trust. He was entitled to sue with the permission of the Court. 7. The Board of Revenue has, in its judgment referred to the resolution dated 10th August, 1963, passed by the Board of Trustees authorising Sri Sheo Prasad Verma, Honorary Secretary, to take suitable action in regard to matters that may go up before the law courts about trust property. It has also been noticed that this resolution was confirmed by the Board of Trustees at its meeting held on 3rd May, 1964. It has also been noticed that this resolution was confirmed by the Board of Trustees at its meeting held on 3rd May, 1964. It is thus evident that the Board of Trustees had expressly authorised the Secretary to represent them in litigation in law courts. This authorisation was, in my opinion, sufficient to enable the Secretary to bring the suit in his own name within meaning of Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. When the trial court repelled the claim that the suit was not properly framed, obviously it had granted permission to the Secretary to sue. 8. Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. further provides that the court shall in such case give at the plaintiffs expense, notice of the institution of the suit to all such persons either by personal service or, where from the number of persons or any other cause such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court may in each case direct. Sub-rule (2) provides that any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended under sub-rule (1) may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. These provisions are meant for the benefit and protection of the other persons who have the same interest as the one who has filed the suit. In the present case none of the other Trustees has taken any objection to the frame of the suit. This is not a case where there is any conflict or controversy between the Trustees inter se. The defendant did not take any objection that the Court should have given notice to the various other Trustees. His plea was that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. That appears to me to be a misguided plea. 9. Order 1, Rule 9, C.P.C. provides that no suit shall be defaulted by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may, in every suit, deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. provides that where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff. 10. Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. provides that where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff. 10. In view of these provisions the Board of Revenue was not, even on its finding that a wrong person had appeared as the plaintiff, entitled to dismiss the suit outright. 11. The heading of the plaint, namely, "Arya Ayurvedic Trust through Sheo Prasad Verma, Honorary Secretary, meant, in substance, the same thing as saying "Sheo Prasad Verma. Honorary Secretary, Arya Ayurvedic Trust". The real person suing was the Honorary Sectary on behalf of the Arya Ayurvedic Trust, which was the popular name of the Trustees. In view of the fact that the Board of Trustees had expressly directed the Honorary Secretary to conduct litigation on their behalf if could not be said that the Honorary Secretary had no entitlement to institute the suit on behalf of the trustees. 12. Learned counsel for the parties placed reliance upon a large number of decided cases, but I do not propose to go into them, because, in my opinion, none of them really touch the crucial point at issue in this petition. 13. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Board for decision of the second appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioners will be entitled to costs. Petition allowed.