CHANDRA BHAN Vs. BHONDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain agricultural plots commenced by the Appellant in the court of Munsif, Partapgarh. The Plaintiff -Appellant claimed that he was sirdar of the plots and as such was entitled to be put into possession of the plots. The Defendant in his turn said, inter alia, that he was an adhivasi of the plots and later by virtue of the notification under the UP Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 became their sirdar. The Munsif referred the issue relating to adhivasi rights to the revenue court which returned a finding in favour of the Respondent. The Munsif while holding that the Plaintiff -Appellant was sirdar dismissed the suit in view of the finding that the Defendant was an adhivasi and had become a sirdar later as claimed by him, The lower appellate court too has come to the same conclusion. Hence this appal.

(2.) THE only question that has been urged before me is that the Munsif should himself have decided the plea of adhivasi rights raised by the Defendant it was not open to him to refer the issue for a finding to the revenue court. And for this reliance has been placed on Section 332B of the ZA and LR Act. This section, as it stood at the time of the institution of the suit or when the reference was made by the learned Munsif to the revenue court, was to the effect that where in any suit relating to land instituted after the commencement of the UP Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 in a civil court, the question arises or is raised whether any party to the suit is or on any material date was an adhivasi or asami of the land and such question had not already been decided by the revenue court, it shall frame an issue on the question and submit the record to the Collector for the decision of that issue only. The claim which the Respondent laid to these plots was that he was an adhivasi originally and became a sirdar as a result to the UP Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954. In order, therefore, that he succeeded in his contention the question to be decided and raised on the pleadings was whether he was on the date when the said Act came into effect an adhivasi, in other words, his right as sirdar followed on the finding in his favour that he was an adhivasi on the said date. The case was thus completely covered by the language of Section 332B as amended by UP Act No. VII of 1955 by which the words "is or on any material date was" were inserted in the section. On the date when the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed and on the date when the issue was referred Section 332B contained the above words and the Munsif was perfectly right in referring the issue to the revenue court for decision. The contention to the contrary of the Appellant cannot be sustained.