MOOL CHAND Vs. KAMTA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The points for consideration are :

(2.) There may be two kinds of references to the revenue court for recording a finding on issues remitted to it for decision) one under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the other under any other enactment. The finding of the revenue court on a reference made under any enactment other than the above act, and of the civil court under any enactment stand in the same category; but in view of the phraseology of Section 332-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, reference made thereunder must be classed in a different group.

(3.) Section 332 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act governs the reference of an issue made to the civil court for decision in cases where question of title is involved; while Section 332-B applies to a similar reference made to the revenue court by a civil court. The two sections have been similarly worded, but in Section 332-B one more sub-section has been added which provides that the finding of the Collector or subordinate revenue court on the issues referred to it shall for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court. It will be found that the word 'finding' has been used in the sub-section at two places, in the beginning with special reference to the finding of the revenue court and at the other with reference to the finding of the civil court. The term 'finding' has not been defined in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and consequently it must be given the meaning which was, or shall be deemed to have been, in the mind of the legislature. But in view of the fact that the word has not been similarly used at the two places, it may become necessary to give a restricted meaning at one place and a broader one at the other. Had the legislature merely laid down that the finding of the Collector or subordinate revenue court on the issues referred to it shall be deemed to be a finding of the civil court, there would have been no controversy as, in the eye of law, the finding recorded by a revenue officer would be a finding recorded by the civil court, at par with findings recorded by the civil court on preliminary issues or issues decided before the final hearing i.e., pronouncement of judgment. But the legislature has laid down in Sub-section 5 of Section 332-B that the finding of the revenue court shall be deemed to be a 'part of the finding' of the civil court. The finding of the revenue court, being a part of the finding of the civil court, the latter must have reference, not to a decision on one or few issues prior to the pronouncement of judgment, but to the judgment itself. In other words, the finding of the revenue court under Section 332-B is, in the eye of law, a part of the judgment of the civil court.