SATISH CHANDRA, J. : - The learned Single Judge has referred the following question to a Full Bench :

"Does the amendment made in Section 331 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1961 affect or take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and decide the present suit instituted in 1953 which was pending on the date the amendment in question came into force."

2. In 1953 Fida Husain, plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Allahabad, for a declaration that he was the sirdar of the plots mentioned in the plaint. The suit was contested by several sets of defendants on a variety of grounds. None of the defendants, however, pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif framed 11 issues in the case. Issue No. 11 was whether the suit as framed is not maintainable. The finding given upon this issue was :

"Nothing has been argued upon this issue and I decide it in the negative."

The suit was decreed on 25-9-1963. It was declared that the plaintiff was the sirdar of 13 only of the plots mentioned in the plaint. Aggrieved, both parties filed cross-appeals. Before the lower appellate Court, the question of jurisdiction of the trial Court was agitated. It was held that the 1956 amendment of the Zamindari Abolition Act transferred jurisdiction of declaratory suits to the revenue Courts. In that Amending Act there was a saving clause by which pending suits were saved but the effect of the saving clause was undone by the amendment effected in 1961. On this view the appeals were allowed. The decree of the trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the plaint shall be returned for presentation to proper court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff came up in appeal to this Court.

3. Section 331 (1) of the Zamindari Abolition Act provided that no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall take cognizance of any suit, application or proceeding mentioned in Column 3 thereof. Column 4 of Schedule II mentioned the revenue courts. The Civil Courts were debarred from taking cognizance of matters mentioned in column 3 of Schedule II. Section 229-B provided for declaratory suits by, inter alia, sirdars. But such suits were not mentioned in Schedule II as it was originally enacted. So, suits for declaration of sirdari rights lay in the civil Court.

4. The U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 18 of 1956 (which came into force on 28th May, 1956) repealed and re-enacted Schedule II to the Act. In the re-enacted Schedule Entry 34 mentioned in column 3 "suit for declaration of rights". The court of original jurisdiction mentioned in column 4 was Assistant Collector, 1st Class. With effect from the coming into force of this Act, suits for declaration of sirdari rights became cognizable by revenue courts alone.

5. Section 23 of the Amending Act of 1956 provided the saving clauses. It stated : -

"23. Saving - (i) Any amendment made by this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequence of 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.

(ii) An appeal, review or revision from any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced before any court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, lie to the court or authority to which it would have lain if instituted or commenced before such commencement."

Section 23 (i) expressly provided that a suit pending in the civil Court shall continue to be heard and decided by such court notwithstanding any amendment made by the Act.

6. The U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 37 of 1958 made some further amendments in the Zamindari Abo