(1.) A learned Single Judge has, in view of a conflict be tween two Division Benches in Basdeo Singh V. Bharat Singh, AIR 1949 All 542 and Bal-bodh v. Mahabir, 1970 All LJ 1145 referred this dvfl revision to a Full Bench.
(2.) INDRAPAL Singh, defendant Oppo site Party No. 1 and Janakpal Singh, father of defendant Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4, were co-sharers in a bhumidhari holding. They, by two sale deeds dated 19th September, 1956 and 26th September, 1957, transferred 2.30 acres out of this holding in favour of the plaintiff-ap plicant One Lakhan Singh, a co-sharer in the holding, filed Suit No. 190 of 1958 for partition in the court of the Munsif, Etah. The transferors and the transferee (namely the plaintiff-applicant) were both impleaded as parties to the partition suit The learned Munsif passed a decree on llth February, 1963, declaring the share of the transferors at .49 acre. Thereupon the transferee filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1, 000/-. Ha claimed that out of the area of 2.30 acres sold to him only .49 acre has re mained with him. The balance 1.81 acres has gone away from him because his trans ferors were declared as having no interest in that area. He claimed refund of Rs. 551/-which represented the proportionate sale con sideration and Rs. 449/- as interest.
(3.) THE trial court repelled the va rious pleas in bar and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed. At the hearing of the appeal the defendants raised an additional plea that the decree for partition was void because the civil court had no jurisdiction to partition the bhumidhari holding. The learn ed Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah, repelled the various pleas urged on the merits of the case but upheld the plea of jurisdiction. Relying on 1970 AO LJ 1145 he held that in view of Section 331 of the Zamindari Aboli tion Act, as it stood after its amendment in 1961, the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the partition suit. So, the partition decree passed on 11-2-1963 in Civfl Suit No. 190 of 1958 was without jurisdiction in view of the Amending Act No. 37 of 1958. It was held that since the partition decree was void, it cannot be said that the share of the defendants had been determined to be .49 acre only, and the plaintiff cannot claim the sale consideration. The appeal was al lowed and the suit was dismissed. Aggriev ed, the plaintiff came up to this Court in revision.