S.C. Manchanda, J. - (1.) This is a defendants' appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act dismissing the objection filed by the defendants to the award.
(2.) The question which falls for consideration is an interesting one, as to whether the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act are subject to the pro visions of the U.P. Amending Act XVIII of 1956 whereby Sec. 332-B was inserted in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 ? This question is res integra.
(3.) The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff as far back as 1949 had filed a suit against the present and other members of the family for a declaration that the plaintiffs had a half share in the suit properties. In the alternative the relief claimed was for a declaration that the parties were joint owners in the suit property. The suit was contested mainly by defendants 1, 2 and 4. The suit remained pending since 1949 for many years and the position which has now arisen in this case is as a result, several years later, of the promulgation of the U.P. Amending Act XVIII of 1956 which made it obligatory for a civil court in all pending proceedings and all suits in which a decree had not yet been passed to refer the matter of Sirdari rights if such a matter was in issue to the Revenue Court. The decision of the Revenue Court under Sec. 332-B (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Z. A. and L.R. Act) had to be accepted by the Civil Court which was to proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of the Collector or the Subordinate Revenue Court on the issue referred to it. I may here, conveniently, read the relevant section of the Z. A. and L.R. Act. "332-B(1) If in any suit relating to land instituted after the commencement of the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954, in a Civil Court or if instituted before the said commencement a decree had not already been passed, the question arises or is raised whether any party to the suit is or on any material date was a sirdar, adhivasi or asami of the land and such question has not previously been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Civil Court shall frame an issue on the question and submit the record to the Collector for the decision of that issue only. Explanation - A plea of being a sirdar, adhivasi or asami which is clearly untenable and intended only to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall not be deemed to raise a question as aforesaid. (2) The Collector after reframing the issues, is necessary, shall decide such issue only, and return the record together, with his finding thereon to the Civil Court which submitted it. (3) The Collector may, instead of deciding the issue himself, transfer it to a competent subordinate revenue court which shall after reframing the same if necessary decide it and return the record. (4) The Civil Court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of the Collector or the subordinate revenue court on the issue referred to it. (5) 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.";