( 1 ) THIS second appeal was referred to a Bench for decision by our brother Srivastava, J. , because in his view a decision given by Bishambhar Dayal, J. in Ram Lochan Singh v. Lakshmi Shankar, civil Revn. No. 1492 of 1956 on 6-1-1958 which was followed by Dhavan, J. in Raghuraj narain v. Judicial Officer, Gaziabad, 1959 All LJ 681 needed reconsideration.

( 2 ) THE suit out of which this second appeal arose had been filed on the 18th August, 1953, in the court of the Munsif Sultanpur. The suit was for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over seven plots of land in village Maksudan Pura in the district of Sultanpur. The plaintiff claimed certain rights in respect of the lands under the u. P. Zamindiari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed certain rights in respect of the lands in dispute.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the trial court, namely the Court of the Munsif struck no less than five issues, but out of those we are con-cerned in the first instance with the first and the second issues which were, respectively, in the following words:

1. Is the plaintiff the sirdar of the plots in suit? 2. Did the plaintiff acquire Adhivasi rights as alleged? the Munsif referred the second issue, namely the issue in respect of Adhivasi rights for decision to the revenue court on the 31st October, 1955, and the revenue court gave its finding on that issue on the 9th April, 1956. On 10-7-1956, the first issue namely the issue in regard to the sirdari rights was also referred by the learned Munsif to the revenue court for decision. This issue was decided by the revenue court on the 22nd September, 1956. The learned Munsif accepted the decision of the revenue court on both the aforementioned issues and decided the case on the 27th November 1956.

( 4 ) THE first question that was raised and on which Srivastava, J. , made the reference, at the time when he admitted the second appeal was formulated by Srivastaya, J. , thus:

"whether in a suit instituted prior to the coming into force of Act XVIII of 1956 by which section 332-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended but which has not been decided before the coming into force of that Act the issue about sirdari was to be referred to the revenue court or not?"

( 5 ) IT was conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that the reference by the learned Munsif to the revenue court for decision of the second, issue, namely the issue in regard to Adhivasi rights, on the 31st October 1955, could not be challenged, and that he did not challenge the validity of that reference and the consequent decision of that issue by the revenue court. Learned counsel, however, contended that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to refer the issue of sirdari to the revenue court on the 10th July 1956, and, therefore, the revenue court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue which it did so on the 22nd of September, 1956. Learned counsel further contended that because of the want of jurisdiction in the Munsif to make a reference to the revenue court and the want of jurisdiction of the revenue court to decide the issue referred to it the entire decision of the learned Munsif was invalid.

( 6 ) IN the years 1954 and 1956 respectively the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended. In 1954, among other amendments made a section, namely Section 332-B was added to the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This was done by Section 64 of Act xx of 1954. This Act came into force on the 16th October, 1954. The section that was acted in 1954 was in these words:

"332-B (1) If in any suit relating to land instituted after the commencement of the U. P. Land reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 in a civil court, or if instituted before the said commencement a decree had not already been passed, the question arises or is raised whether any party to the suit is or on any material date wa