This is plaintiff s appeal. 2. The plaintiff appellant had filed suit for recovery of arrear of salary for the period from 1. 11. 67 to 30. 10. 70 as Assistant Teacher in the Soalkuchi K. R. K. Girls' High School. The plaint­iff's case was that he had been appointed Assistant teacher in the Soalkuchi Government Aided Girl's High School, later named as Soalkuchi Govt. Aided Kaliram Karikar Girl's High School, by its Managing Committee from 15. 5. 61. The plaintiff was later confirmed with effect from 15.9.63 by letter dated 25.9.67. The plaintiff was informed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee that his service would be terminated with effect from 1. 11. 67, The plaintiff there upon filed T. S. 238/67 on 29. 9. 67 in the court of Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati and temporary injunction had been issued and the plaintiff had continued to work. By judgment dated 17. 2. 79 the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and the order of injunction was vacated. The plaintiff preferred appeal which was allowed on 20. 4. 70 and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. The defendants further appeal to the High Court was however allowed and the plaintiff's suit was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiff's contention was that he had continued to work for the period from 1-11-67 to 30-10-70 and his total due from the school was Rs. 7, 210.70 which he was entitled to recover as arrears of salary. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 7, 210.70 3. The suit was filed against the defendants on 2. 11. 70 in which the defendant no. 1 was described as the President of the Managing Committee. Defendant no. 2 as its Secretary, Defendant No. 3 the Headmaster of the school and the remaining defendants were stated to be the members of the Managing Committee. 4. The claim was resisted by some of the defendants who pleaded that the plaintiff's service had been terminated, in view of the direction of the Government because the Government had not approved the appointment and consequently even though the plaintiff had continued to work under the orders of the court, the defendants were not liable' for the claim. The learned trial court hid framed necessary issues and by judgment dated 25. 3. 1967 the suit was decreed. The learned trial court hid framed necessary issues and by judgment dated 25. 3. 1967 the suit was decreed. On appeal the learned District Judge by judgment and decree dated 15.4 1981 held that the suit could not be decreed against the defen­dants because the school Managing Committee and the Government had not been made parties. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has came in appeal and Shri P.1SF. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the plaintiff could not sue the school or the Managing Committee because they were not juristic persons and that is why all the me­mbers of the Managing Committee were arrayed as defendants. The Government was not necessary party. Shri P. N. Goswami has sub­mitted that the view taken by the learned appellate court below was therefore erroneous and the plaintiff could only sue the Managing Committee through its members for the relief prayed for. 6. No one has appeared for the respondents. 7. I have considered the submissions for the appellant. 8. The appellant claimed salary for the period he had worked in the school, though on the strength of the orders of the court. The appellant thus having worked in the school, the appellant should get his due salary and allowances from the school Managing Committee. Since the Government was not liable for the salary, the Government had not been made party. The school or the Managing Committee were not registered society i.e. juristic person and could not be made parties and they could be sued oily through members of the Manag­ing Committee who had been made party and consequently the decree has to be made against the members of the Managing Com­mittee who shall be liable for ensuring payment of due arrear salary for and on behalf of the school. In G.I. P. Institute vs. Mohrt, AIR 1954 Nagpur 29, it was field that claim against a club which was not registered body and consequently not a juristic person, could be only through the members of the club. It is settled principle in law that claim against a body, which is not registered and consequently not a juristic person as could be sued has to be against the members of the body who have to be arrayed as defendants in the suit. It is settled principle in law that claim against a body, which is not registered and consequently not a juristic person as could be sued has to be against the members of the body who have to be arrayed as defendants in the suit. Has view taken by the learned appellate court below that since the Inspector of schools or the Managing Committee had not been made party the claim could not succeed was there for not sound and correct for the reason that not being juristic person they could not be made defendants in the suit and consequently the plaintiff appellant had taken right action in law to implead all members of the Managing Committee of the school as defendants in the suit. The view taken by the learned appellate court below being erroneous the impugned judgment decree should be set aside. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impug­ned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court below are set aside and that of the learned trial court are resto­red for the recovery of due salary etc. from the school through the defendants., the members etc. of its Managing Committee. No costs.