C.B. Capoor, J. - (1.) THIS appeal and second appeal No. 1105 of 1962 have been preferred by Ranjit Singh and are directed against the appellate judgment and decrees of the learned Civil Judge, Azamgarh and in order to facilitate matters, I propose to dispose of both the appeals together. The only question that has been argued on behalf of the Appellant is as to whether the Appellant was an Adhivasi of the disputed plots or not. In order to appreciate that question, the following facts had better be stated.
(2.) PLOTS Nos. 1103, 1105, 1106 and 1107 situate in village Chillupur, Pargana Deogaon, District Azamgarh, were usufructuarily mortgaged by Harpal Singh and others in favour of Matai Singh and others. Ranjit Singh, Respondent No. 1 to the present appeal was the sub -mortgagee of the aforesaid plots. Subsequently, some of the aforesaid plots were purchased by Ram Raj Singh and he filed an application under Section 12 of the UP Agriculturists Relief Act against Banshu Singh, Sri Net Singh and Matbar Singh. The application was allowed on 29th of July 1940 and actual, possession over the mortgaged property was obtained by Ramraj Singh on 19th of February 1942. Thereafter, a suit under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act was filed by the aforesaid Ramraj Singh in respect of the aforesaid plots against the Appellants Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh. It was decreed on 23rd November 1944 and in pursuance of the decree, possession was obtained on 12th of March 1946. On 12th of August 1944, a proceeding under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated in respect of the aforesaid plots. The Appellants, Ram Surat Singh and Baleshwar Singh were parties to the proceeding and the aforesaid plots were attached on 29th of October 1948. The aforesaid plots were ordered to be released in favour of Ramraj Singh on 2nd of April 1951. On 30th of June 1949 while the proceeding under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was pending, Ramraj Singh filed another suit under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, the trial of which was stayed in accordance with the rules framed under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Thereafter two suits were filed -one No. 336 of 1954 by Ranjit Singh Appellant against Ramraj Singh and others. Ramsurat Singh and Baleshwar Singh initially figured as pro -forma Defendants to that suit. Subsequently, they were transposed as Plaintiffs. The suit was for an injunction restraining Ram Raj Singh and others from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the disputed plots, on the allegations that they were either sirdars or Adhivasis of the disputed plots, that the decree for redemption obtained by Ramraj Singh was a nullity and that the Defendants interfered with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the disputed plots without any right. The other suit No. 511 of 1954 was filed by Ramraj Singh on the allegations that he was the tenant of the disputed plots and was in possession over the same. The Defendants interfered with his possession and also uprooted and removed the crops which were standing on those plots. The value of the uprooted crops according to the Plaintiff was Rs. 100/ - and accordingly a suit for recovery of Rs. 100/ - was filed by Ramraj Singh against the Defendants. One of the issues framed in the aforesaid two cases was as to whether Ramraj Singh or Ranjit Singh and others were Adhivasis in respect of the disputed plots. That issues was referred to the revenue court for a finding. The learned Assistant Collector to whom the aforesaid issues were referred recorded his finding in favour of Ramraj Singh and against Ranjit Singh and others. On receipt of the aforesaid finding, the learned Munsif dismissed the suit for injunction filed by Ranjit Singh and others and decreed the suit for recovery of damages against Ramraj Singh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decrees, two separate appeals were filed - -one by Ramraj Singh and the other by Ranjit Singh and others. The appeal filed by Ramraj Singh was allowed and the appeal filed by Ranjit Singh and others was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Ranjit Singh has preferred the present appeals. The only question that arises for decision is as to whether the Appellant was an Adhivasi of the disputed plots. The relevant portion of Section 20(b) of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act reads as below: Every perron who - - (b) was recorded as occupant (i) of any land other than grove land or land to which Section 16 applies or land referred to in the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 27 of the UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 194 -7 in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F. prepared under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, or who was on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 27 of the United provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, or (ii) of any land to which Section 16 applies in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F prepared under Sections 28 and 33. respectively of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, but who was not in the possession in the year 1359F. shall, unless he has become a Bhumidhar of the land under Sub -section (2) of Section 18 or an asami under Clause (h)of Section 21 be called Adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Explanation 1.... Explanation 2. Where any entry in the records referred to in Clause (b) have been corrected before the date of vesting under or in accordance with the provisions of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, the entry so corrected shall for the purposes of the said clause prevail. Explanation 3. For the purposes of Explanation II, an entry shall be deemed to have been corrected before the date of vesting if an order or decree of a competent court requiring any correction in records had been made before the said date and had become final even though the correction may not have been incorporated in the records. Explanation 4. For the purposes of this section 'occupant' as respects any land does not include a person who was entitled as an intermediary to the land or any share therein in the year 1356F.
(3.) THERE was conflict as to the interpretation of the expression recorded as occupant in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F., but that conflict has been set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in, 1964 AWR 541 :, 1964 UPRC 242 - -Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah. It has been held in that case that the title to possession as Adhivasi depends upon the entries in the khasra and khatauni for the year 1356F and that Section 20 eliminates enquiry into disputed possession by accepting the record in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F or its correction before 1 -7 -1952.;