CHANDRIA PRASAD Vs. PULLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant points out that in respect of the same judgment of the Allahabad High court two other appeals were also filed before this court being Civils Nos. 3316 of 1979 and 1772 of 1981. The respondents have pointed out that both these appeals have been allowed by order dated 22/8/1995 by a bench of two Judges of this court of which one of us (Hon'ble Mrs Justice Sujata V. Manohar) was a party.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents points out that in those appeals the provisions of Section 21 (l) (d) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were not pointed out. Under the said provision, a mortgagee in actual possession from a person belonging to any of the classes set out therein shall be deemed to be only an asami and not an adhivasi. He also submits that the lessee from the mortgagee will also, at the highest, be an asami and not an adhivasi. He also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. Bansi and in particular, para 4 of the said judgment at p. 485. This judgment was not pointed out before the bench which considered the earlier two appeals. In view thereof, it is necessary to constitute a larger bench to consider the point in issue in this appeal. The appeal may, therefore, be placed before Hon'ble the chief justice of India for constituting a larger bench. court Masters