JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---This Appeal has to be dismissed, at the threshold, on the ground that the Grampanchayat, who has filed the Appeal, had no locus to file the same. 2. It is unnecessary to state the facts in detail. They have been fully stated in the judgment of the courts below. Very briefly stated, the facts are that the dispute existed or exists between present respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff) on the one hand and present respondents Nos. 2 3 (defendants Nos. 2 3) on the other as regards the ownership of some house property is village Kini, Taluka, Akkalkot, District Solapur. According to the plaintiff, thought the property belonged to himself and though his name was entered in the Village Panchayat record against the said property, defendants Nos. 2 3 prevailed upon him to execute certain documents starting therein that the plaintiff was only a Pujari of the deity installed in the said property and that he had no right of ownership in the same. According to the plaintiff, the document was an application to the Grampanchayat which he was compelled to sign by the villagers of the village Kini by making a gherao against his Will and without his consent, the document was presented to the Village Panchayat on the basis of which the office of the Village Panchayat made entries in the Village Panchayat Record showing that the property in question belonged to the village. According to the plaintiff, he immediately applied to the Grampanchayat that the application in question was not made by him voluntarily at all. The Village Panchayat was called upon by the plaintiff to restore the original entries. The Village Panchayat did not comply with the plaintiff's demands. Hence, the plaintiff filed the instant suit. The suit was for a declaration that the suit property was of his ownership and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The Grampanchayat was defendant No. 1 in the suit and the two representatives of the villagers were defendants Nos. 2 3. 3. In their defence, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied the plaintiff's claim and contended that the suit property belonged to the village. The Grampanchayat was defendant No. 1 in the suit and the two representatives of the villagers were defendants Nos. 2 3. 3. In their defence, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied the plaintiff's claim and contended that the suit property belonged to the village. The Written Statement of the Village Panchayat was to the effect that the application which was originally filed by it and in the name of the plaintiff was found by the Village Panchayat to be his genuine application. This was the justification on the part of the Village Panchayat for making alterations in the entries in the Village Panchayat Record. Quite curiously, the Village Panchayat also took the peal challenging the plaintiff's title to the suit property. The curious aspect of this matter would be mentioned by me presently. 4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has not established his title to the suit property and hence dismissed the suit. In Appeal, the District Court has held that the plaintiff had led sufficient evidence to establish his title and hence it held that the plaintiff's claim of title was fully vindicated. The Appeal was therefore, allowed by the District Court, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the plaintiff's suit was decreed by the Appeal Court. 5. Strangely enough, the present Appeal against that decree is not filed by the villagers, represented by original defendants Nos. 2 and 3, but by Village Panchayat, who, as will be presently pointed out, is a mere stakeholder in the dispute of such nature. 6. When the Appeal reached hearing before me and the facts were stated. I called upon the learned Advocate for the appellant to show me as to under what provision of the Village Panchayat Act, the Village Panchayat who claims no title to the suit property could be said to be a party interested in this litigation or a party aggrieved by the order of the Appeal Court. All that the Village Panchayat has do in matters, is to enter the names of the owner of the property in the Village Records. It is not the function of the Village Panchayat to adjudicate upon the dispute between the contesting parties. In all these matters, the authorities like the Village Panchayat or the Revenue Officers like the Talathi and the Mamlatdar are mere stakesholders. It is not the function of the Village Panchayat to adjudicate upon the dispute between the contesting parties. In all these matters, the authorities like the Village Panchayat or the Revenue Officers like the Talathi and the Mamlatdar are mere stakesholders. They may be, in the first instance, at liberty to act upon certain applications of parties for mutations and change of entries. But that is the decision taken by them upon the evidence available before them and it is essentially of a summary administrative character. From the very nature of things, they are not constituted the arbiters of the disputes between the two warring parties. That function in our country is performed by the institutions called Courts; not by Village Panchayats. A statute may constitute even a Village Panchayat as an Arbiter in certain dispute. But the Bombay Village Panchayat Act has done nothing of that type so far as the dispute of the present nature is concerned. 7. In this connection, reference can be conveniently made to the provision of section 45 of the Village Panchayat Act read with the village list which is included in the schedule to the said Act. The various duties and functions and powers of the Village Panchayat are set out in the said village list. One may read the list from top to bottom and from left to right: not one provision can be shadow of right to entertain such dispute between private parties or to arbitrate in such dispute. No doubt, in all these matters, when one party comes to the Village Panchayat's office for mutation of entries or for making of entries, certain decisions are required to be arrived at by the officers in a summary manner. But from the very nature of things, their decisions are subject to the decision of a Court of Competent jurisdiction. It is nobody's case that the District Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. If the District Court has decided the matter against defendants Nos. 2 3, no justification exist for the Village Panchayat to take cadgels for defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and to approach this Court for getting the decision of the District Court set aside. It is nobody's case that the District Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. If the District Court has decided the matter against defendants Nos. 2 3, no justification exist for the Village Panchayat to take cadgels for defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and to approach this Court for getting the decision of the District Court set aside. In other words, the Grampanchayat is only a stakeholder; it is not a party aggrieved by the judgment of the District Court in the accepted connotation of the phrase, it is, thus, clear that the Village Panchayat has no locus standi to file this Appeal. The mere fact that the Village Panchayat was made a party to the litigation does not mean that the Village Panchayat becomes a party aggrieved by the decision one way or the other. 8. The Appeal has to be dismissed on this very short point itself. The Appeal, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) only. Appeal dismissed. -----