KEDAR NATH Vs. JAMUNA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. In 1940, Kedar Math appellant filed a suit against the present respondents for their ejectment under S. 180, U.P. Tenancy Act (hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). That suit was decreed; and the appellant obtained possession. Subsequently the respondents were reinstated under S. 27 of U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act (No. X of 1947 - hereafter referred to as the 1947 Act). Soon after the respondents reinstatement, the appellant, filed the present suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen. This civil suit for the defendants ejectment was decreed by the First Additional Munsif of Gorakhpur. The defendants appealed. The appeal was allowed by the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur; and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. The learned Civil Judge held that a person who was reinstated under S. 27 of the 1947 Act is not liable to be ejected again. Kedar Nath plaintiff has, therefore, come up in second appeal.

(2.) WHEN the second appeal came tip for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the appellant relied upon a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in "Sri Ram Pathak v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1956 All LJ 343. The learned Single Judge considered that that decision required reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the case, to a Division Bench. When the matter was considered by a Division Bench, the Bench also thought that the previous decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pathaks case, 1956 All LJ 343 is not correct. The case has, therefore, been referred to a Full Bench.

(3.) IN the instant case the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of S. 27 has no application. The question is whether, after their reinstatement under Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of S. 27, the respondents remained liable to be ejected again by virtue of Sub-Section (5) of S. 27.