The amendment of Section 19(3)(e) of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, by the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981, narrowed down the scope of the disputes that were required to be referred to the Collector (Agrarian).

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises against the judgement and decree passed by Honble Mr. Justice S. M. F. Ali (Chief Justice) on November 28, 1972, as he then was passed in Civil Second Appeal No: 88 of 1971 confirming the judgement and decree passed by District Judge, Bhaderwah, on October, 19,1971.

2. Although the facts of the case are not very much disputed before us even then in order to elucide the matter in controversy, we feel it necessary to narrate the brief facts out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises. The facts in brief are that ore Habib Sheikh son of Subhan-Sheikh of Tehsil Kishtwar earlier filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff was entitled to half of the land mentioned in the plaint as Co-owner with the defendant-respondent Ahmadoo Alias Gul Mohd, who claimed the land through the common ancestor Lassa, who purchased the lard in dispute, which is admittedly an agricultural land. The suit for declaration was initially registered on August 28, 1955, which was later on compromised en September 19, 1957 and a compromise decree was drawn up giving 1/4 the share of the land in dispute to the plaintiff Subsequently the defendant/respondent in the present appeal brought a suit for cancellation of the compromise decree on the basis of fraud and non-compliance of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was dismissed by the trial court on 13 6,1960, but on appeal by the defendant it was decreed by the District Judge on June 28, 1963. Thereafter a further appeal was taken to the High Court, which upheld the decree passed by the District Judge. The decree passed by the District Judge was upheld by the High Court and consequentially the compromise decree stood set aside and the parties were relegated to the position they occupied at this time the compromise decree was passed and the previous suit brought by the present plaintiffs for declaration stood revived During the pendency of the subsequent suit, the plaintiff applied for permission to amend the plaint to include prayer for possession of part of the suit land, which was granted by the order of the court on July 4, 1968. Thus the amended plaint included the prayer including that of declaration of title about possession also. Thereafter the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is entitled to half of the suit land and therefore, entitled to a decree accordingly. On appeal to the learned District Judge, the District Judge, Bhadarwah upheld the decree passed by the learned trial Court and upheld the finding that the said property was the joint acquisition of the brother and the respondent was entitled to half of the share. Consequentially the appeal was dismissed

3 Against the decree confirmed by the learned District Judge as stated above, the present appellant Gulam Ahmad alias Gul Mohd and another filed the Civil Second Appeal before the learned Single Judge, which came up for hearing and on hearing the respective counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge Honble the Chief Justice, as he then was, upheld the finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below in a detailed judgement discussing the law on the point and the controversy raised on fact before his lordship and consequentially dismissed the Civil Second Appeal on November 28, 1972. Thereafter by the order passed on December 22, 1972, his Lordship granted leave to appeal under the Letters Patent Appeal and thus the present Letter Patent Appeal

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, it has been pointed cut by the learned counsel for the appellants very strenuously that in the facts and circumstances of the present case despite the fact the finding of facts are concluded by the decree in the Second Appeal, the case in hand can not proceed before the Civil Court on account of the subsequent legislation and coming into force of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, which clearly bars the jur