Om Prakash Trfvedi, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by Maharaja Dhar-mendra Prasad Singh and Maharani Raj Lakshmi Kumari Devi against the judgment and decree passed by the Judicial Officer (Assistant Collector, First Class) Gonda dated 1-12-1960 in the following circumstan ces: On 21-11-1956 Maharaja Sir Pateshwari Prasad Singh, proprietor of the then Bal rampur Raj, filed a suit in the Court of the Judicial Officer Balrampur, district Gonda under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired bhumi-dhari rights under Section 18 of the said Act over Plots Nos. 1647, 1648 and 1977 in villaee Baghelkhand, Pergana Tulshipur, Tah-sil Balrampur, district Gonda, the plaintiff having claimed also to have planted trees over the said land and being owner thereof. It was alleged that the State of Uttar Pra desh had illegally and without any right or title forcibly got the trees cut down and wood removed from the plots having dispossessed the plaintiff Maharaja from the disput ed plots. A decree for recovery of posses sion as also Rs. 82, 892/- as damages was prayed for. The suit was contested by the respondents who denied that the plaintiff was bhumidhar of the land or that the ownership of the trees belonged to him. The suit was resisted also on the ground that no notice as required by law had been given to the defendant-respondents; that the suit is not cognizable by the Revenue Court; that the court-fee paid was insufficient and that the land in suit had become vested in the Gaon Sabha after the passing of Act I of 1951. The following issues were framed by the Judicial Officer: 1. Is the plaintiff a bhumidhar of the land in suit? 2. Is the suit within time? 3. Are the defendants trespassers of the land in suit? 4. Whether the court-fee stamps are sufficient? 5. Is the suit cognizable by this court? 6. Is the suit bad for want of valid notice? 7. To what relief and damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 8. Has the land in suit vested in Gram Samaj after passing of Act I of 1951?
(2.) BY an order dated 11-12-1959 the Judicial Officer remitted issue No. 1 to Mun-sif Gonda for decision and the latter by an order dated 22-7-1960 recorded the finding that the plaintiff is not the bhumidhar of the suit land. On the basis of this finding under issue No. 1 the Judicial Officer found that the plaintiff is not proved to be the bhumi dhar of the land in suit. On issues 2, 3, 7 and 8 the Judicial Officer felt not called upon to record any findings in view of the con clusion returned by the Civil Court that the plaintiff is not bhumidhar of the land in suit and therefore did not record any findings on those issues. On issues 4, 5 and 6, however, he gave findings against the defendant-res pondents and in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was in the result dismissed with costs. We have heard Mr. S. Naziruddin and Mr. S. M. Fakhruzzaman for the ap pellants and Mr. K. S. Varma, learned Chief Standing Counsel. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding of the Munsif on issue No. 1 was without jurisdiction because there was no jurisdiction left in the Judicial Officer to re mit that issue to the Civil Court on 11-12-1959 after amendment of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (No. 37 of 1958) which came into force on 7-11-1958. The point raised by the learned coun sel for the appellants makes it necessary to trace the various changes and development in the law by amendment of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act). In the Principal Act as it stood amended after the U. P. Zamindari Abolition (Amendment) Act (No. 16 of 1953) the policy initially appears to have been that all questions of title should be decided by the Civil Court only. There was Section 332 in the Act which provided as follows:- "332. Procedure when question of title is raised- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 331, if in any suit or proceedings mentioned in column 3 of Schedule II, a question is raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding and such question is directly and substantially in issue the court shall, unless the question has already been decided by a competent Court, frame an issue on the question of the title and sub mit the record to the competent Civil Court for the decision of that issue only."
(3.) THUS , at the stage if a question of title arose whether relating to Adhivasi, Asami, Sirdari or Bhumidhari right in a suit instituted in the Revenue Court then that Court was required under Section 332 to frame an issue on the question of title and refer the same for decision to the competent Civil Court.;