( 1 ) THE following question has been referred by our brother Broome to a larger Bench :

"whether in a suit under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and the appeal arising out of such a suit, the Zamindar was a necessary party even after the abolition of the Zamindari?"

( 2 ) THE question arises in a suit instituted under Sections 59, 180 and 183 of the U. P. Tenancy act, 1939, by the petitioners against Azimullah lumberdar of the mahal in which the land in dispute is situated and all the co-sharers of the mahal, including Sadiq Husain and Salim Ullah, alleging that Salim Ullah, who is a son of Azim Ullah, had no cultivatory right at all in the land in dispute and his name was fictitiously recorded in the village papers and that they themselves were the hereditary tenants. The suit was contested only by Salim Ullah; the lumberdar and other co-sharers did not contest it. While it was pending the U. P. Tenancy Act was repealed and the u. P. Zamin-dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force with effect from 1-7-1952. The land in dispute is a cultivated land, still the Gaon Sabha ot the village in which it is situated was impleaded as one more defendant as required