JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional Civil Judge, Mainpuri. The material facts for the decision of this appeal are as follows. On 22nd March, 1955 the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant and Gram Sabha concerned for partition of certain agricultural plots of land under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Court of Munsif Mainpuri. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 4th March, 1957. Lots were thereafter prepared by the Revenue Authorities concerned on 16th June, 1958. Thereafter a final decree was ordered to be drawn up on 19th November, 1959, and it was actually drawn up on 10th February, 1961. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for possession and it appears that possession was delivered to him in pursuance of the final decree so passed. An application was thereupon filed under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code by Puttu Lal judgment-debtor, inter alia, contending that the final decree passed by the Civil Court was a nullity inasmuch as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction on 19th November, 1959, to pass such a decree in the matter. It was, therefore, pleaded that the decree was not executable and possession should not have been delivered to the decree-holders in pursuance of such a decree. This objection did not find favour with the Munsif who rejected the application under Sec.47, Civil Procedure Code on 30th September, 1964. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal from the said order. That appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Mainpuri. Aggrieved by the said decision the judgment-debtor has come up to this Court in execution second appeal.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the amendment made in the relevant provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by Act XXXVII of 1958 the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the final decree in the case and as such the final decree was a nullity. There is great force in this submission. A similar question arose in the case of Nathu Singh v. Dular Singh, 1970 All LJ 923 in which a Division Bench of this Court considered the effect of the amendments introduced by the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1958 upon a suit already pending. It was held that in view of the amendment introduced by the Amendment Act of 1958 the suit for partition was maintainable in the Revenue Court and was governed entirely by the provisions applicable to suits tried by the Revenue Courts. It was the Revenue Court which would declare the rights of the several parties, and the partition of the holding or separation of the shares therein would also be effected by the Revenue Court.

Referring to Section 182-B of the Act it was observed that when Section 182 provides that the partition of a holding or separation of share shall be made by the Court it refers the Court which entertains the suit and that is the Revenue Court. Therefore, after the Amendment Act of 1958 a suit for partition of Bhumidhari holding lies in the Revenue Court, which declares the rights of the parties and finally partitions the holdings or separates the shares therein. In regard to the cases which were already pending at the time of the enforcement of the Amendment Act it was observed that after passing the preliminary decree the jurisdiction of the Civil Court had exhausted. There was nothing in the law to empower the Civil Court to partition the holding. That was a matter falling entirely within the scope of the Collector's jurisdiction. It was also observed that whether the unamended Section 182-B or the amended Section 182-B applied it was clear that the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to

partition the holding. In the instant case the final decree was obviously ordered to be drawn up and in fact actually drawn up after the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 1958. The Civil Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to pass the final decree in the case. Its jurisdiction was exhaust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document