Raghubar Dayal, J. - (1.) The question referred to the Full Bench In these appeals is: "Whether appeals under Section 23, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act from the orders of a civil Court would lie to the appellate Court of the lowest jurisdiction where the original decrees from such Court be appealable to more Courts than one, regardless of the valuation of the proceedings before the trial Court".
(2.) Sub-section (1) of Section 23, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act is:- "An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from an order of a Collector or Assistant Collector passed under this chapter. An appeal shall lie from the order of a civil Court passed under this chapter to the Court to which original decrees passed by such Court are ordinarily appealable, and where such decrees are appealable to more Courts than one, to the Court of lowest jurisdiction".
(3.) Different interpretations of the relevant portion of Section 23 were put by this Court in the two cases of 'Tajpal Singh v. Ganga Sahai', AIR 1952 All 808 (A) and Gaya Rai v. Lalji Rai', AIR 1953 All 579 (B). The view taken in the first case was that appeals from the orders of a civil Court under Chap III, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act would lie to the Court to which original decrees from that Court would have lain according to the valuation of the decrees as laid down in Section 21, Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (12 of 1887). The view expressed in the latter case was that all appeals, irrespective of the valuation of the suits, would lie to the Court of the lowest Jurisdiction.;