S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) The above writ petition and the second appeal were heard together and are in respect of the same property as such I propose to dispose of them together.
(2.) The facts giving rise to these proceedings are as follows : Two leases in respect of the same property in the year 1951 were executed one in favour of Pa -halwan Singh and Moti Lal, opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5, by Chaudhari Raghunath Singh the Lumbardar of the village and another in respect of the same property in favour of Kali Charan and Gajraj Singh Petitioners by some cosharers of the village, In view of these conflicting leases there was a dispute between the parties about the title of the plots in dispute. In that very year, i.e. 1951, Pahalwan Singh and Moti Lal opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 filed a suit Under Sec. 59/180 of the UP Tenancy Act against the Petitioners Kali Charan and Gajraj Singh for their ejectment. This suit was pending in the revenue court at the time when Act XXXI of 1952 was passed. In the year 1953 the revenue court took the view that after the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act such a suit could not be entertained by the revenue court as such returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Thereafter a suit was instituted in civil court for declaration of the sirdari right and ejectment of the Petitioners Kali Charan and Gajraj Singh by Pahalwan Singh and Moti Lal, opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. This suit was dismissed by the trial court on the finding; that Defendants had become adhiyasis and later on sirdars by virtue of Act XX of 1954.
(3.) An appeal was preferred against the decision of the trial court and the Civil Judge set aside that order and came to the conclusion that Plaintiffs Pahalwan Singh and Moti Lal were the sirdars of the plots in dispute and the Defendants Petitioners Kali Charan and Gajraj Singh were trespassers as such decreed the suit. The Civil Judge set aside the finding of the Munsif about the adhivasi right of the Defendants Petitioners on the ground that the Defendants Petitioners could not claim adhivasi right on account of the cultivatory possession in 1359 in view of Sec. 6 of Act XXXI of 1952 for at the time of the passing of Act XXXI of 1952 a suit Under Sec. 59/180 of the UP Tenancy Act was pending before the revenue court.;