JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the decision of the First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. The material facts are these :-

2. One Jhooroo filed a suit for partition of agricultural holding on 30-5-1957 in the court of Munsif Hawaii, Varanasi. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed in the case on 6-2-1958. On 20-3-1958, the plaintiff died and his daughter was brought on record as his legal representative. She sold the properties in dispute to Bhagwan Das, whereupon his name was substituted in the suit. The final decree was passed on 7-2-1963. The decree-holder then sought execution of the decree. The decree was executed and the Amin filed 'dakhaldihani' dated 4-6-1963. Whereupon the execution was struck off in full satisfaction. Thereafter the present appellant filed an objection purporting to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the entire execution proceedings and contending that the final decree having been passed by a court which had no jurisdiction was a nullity. The decree-holder contested the aforesaid application under Section 47. Civil Procedure Code on the ground that once the execution has been struck off in full satisfaction the court became functus officio and as such the application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable. He also contended that the civil court had jurisdiction to pass a final decree. The impugned decree was, therefore, not a nullity and was executable. The contention of the decree-holder found favour with the learned Munsif, Hawali, who accordingly rejected the application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal from the said order but his contentions were not accepted by the appellate court below and his appeal was dismissed. The judgment-debtor has now come to this Court in second appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that both the courts below erred in holding that the civil court on the relevant date had the requisite jurisdiction to pass a final decree in the suit for partition of agricultural holding which had been filed under Section 176 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. He submitted that on 30-5-1957 when the suit for partition was filed by Jhooroo the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the same but it had no jurisdiction to pass a final decree in the suit on 7-2-1963 in view of the amending Act No. 37 of 1958 which had come in operation on 7-11-1958. Consequently the final decree passed by the learned Munsif was nullity, hence inexecutable. I find great force in this submission. Section 176 was amended by the Amending Act No. 37 of 1958. The word 'partition' appearing in that section Was substituted by the word 'division'. Section 182-A was deleted and Section 182-B reads as follows :-

"Section 182-B : Subject to the provisions of Sections 178 and 182 the division of a holding or the separation of the share therein of a bhumidhar or sirdar shall be made by the Court in accordance with the principles that may be prescribed." Section 87 of the Amendment Act of 1958 provided as follows :

"Section 87 (1) : Except as provided in Sections 85 and 86, any amendment made by this Act shall not affect the validity, effect or consequence or anything already done or suffered or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred or any jurisdiction already exercised, and any proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, continue to be heard and decided by such court or authority."

In view of these amendments in the relevant provisions of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass a final decree and that only the revenue court had the jurisdiction to pass the final decree.

4. The position of law obtaining before and after Amendment Act of 1958 in respect of