HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Referred Judgements :-
NATIONAL TELEPHONE CO. LTD. V. POSTMASTER GENERAL
SECY. OF STATE V. RAMA RAO
MAUNG BA THAW V. MA PIN
NATIONAL SEWING THREAD CO. LTD. V. JAMES CHADWIOK AND BROS. LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
Oak, J. -
(1.)IN these 14 connected second appeals a common question of law has been referred to us. That question is in these terms:-- "Does a second appeal He to the High Court against the appellate decree of a civil Court passed under Sub-section (4) of Section 332 (since deleted) of the U. P. Zamiudari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?"
(2.)IN order to understand how this question of law arose in these cases, it will be convenient to outline the facts of one case. Second Appeal No. 1183 of 1962 arises out of a suit filed by Smt. Gulab Rani, against Jamuna Das and others for ejectment under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. 1 of 1951), hereafter referred to as the Act. Jamuna Das, defendant No. 1 raised a plea that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 wore bhumidhars of the land in dispute. That question was referred to the civil Court The civil Court decided that defendants are not bhumidhars of the land in dispute. The revenue Court accepted that finding, and decreed the plaintiff's suit. An appeal by Jamuna Das defendant was dismissed by the Temporary Civil Judge, Hamirpur. Jamuna Das and Sia Ram defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. When the second appeal was argued before a learned single Judge of this Court, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the second appeal was incompetent. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that maintainability of second appeals in such cases raises a question of importance. He, therefore, referred the question quoted above to a larger Bench.
In Chhotey v. Ghansoley, (Second Appeal No. 1333 of 1957, dated 1-8-1962 (All)), the Court had to consider whether under similar circumstances a second appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 232 of the Act was maintainable. It was held by Dhavan, J. that, no second appeal lay in such a case.
In this reference we have to consider the combined effect of Sections 331 and 332 of the Act. Section 332 was deleted by U. P. Amendment Act No. 37 of 1958. Since we are largely concerned with the true effect of Section 332 of the Act, it will be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act as it stood before its amendment by U. P. Act No. 37 of 1958.
(3.)SECTION 331 deals with cognizance of the suits, etc. Under this Act SECTION 331 stated:-- "(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. 2. Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid. 3. An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a Court mentioned in column 4 in the proceedings mentioned in column 3 to the Court or authority mentioned in column 5 thereof. 4. A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in an appeal under Sub-section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the schedule aforesaid."
It will be noticed that Section 331 contained four sub-sections. Sub-section (1) laid down that suits mentioned in the second schedule had to be tried by revenue Courts. Sub-section (2) laid down that no appeal lay except as hereinafter provided. Sub-section (3) provided for a first appeal. Sub-section (4) of Section 331 provided for a second appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.