G. D. SAHGAL, J. : This second civil appeal has come up before this Bench for disposal. The learned single Judge before whom it came up referred it to a Full Bench in view of the conflict between two Division Bench cases of this Court, viz. Hub Lal v. Mst. Dulara. 1954 All LJ 762 and Durgapal Singh v. Kunwar Julian Singh, (8) 1957 All 257 as according to him, the result or the appeal depends on whether one or the other or the two decisions was correct.

2. The dispute relates to plots Nos. 558/1, 558/2, 565/1, 566/1, 566/2 and 567/2. The plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit against the defendants-appellants with respect, among others, to these plots for possession and damages. They claimed that they were the sirdars of these plots and were in possession having obtained the same on the 19th of October, 1947, in execution of a decree in a suit for ejectment against the appellants filed in the year 1946. They claim to have been dispossessed thereafter in the year 1955 as a result of which this suit was filed. The claim of the defendants-appellants, however, was that they were the subtenants of these plots and had continued to be so all along without ever being dispossessed and as such they had become adhivasis under S. 20(a)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and subsequently became sirdars. This plea of theirs has been negatived by the learned Civil Judge in the first appeal who held that they had been ejected in the year 1947 and bad not been in possession till they dispossessed the plaintiffs in the year 1955 when the latter had to file the suit giving rise to this appeal. Their case, in the alternative, however, was that by virtue of being recorded as occupants in the Khasra and Khatauni of 1356 Fasli they had acquired the status of adhivasis under S. 20(b) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Their names had in fact continued to he recorded in column No. 6 of the Khasra even though they had been ejected, and were so recorded in the year 1356 Fasli.

3. As there is a finding of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal, to the effect that the appellants had been ejected in the year 1947 and had not been in possession since then till the year 1955 when they dispossessed the plaintiffs they were no longer sub-tenants. On behalf of the appellants, therefore, it has not been urged that they had become sirdars undo S. 20(a) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The only plea that has been pressed before us is that by virtue of the entry as occupant in the year 1356 Fasli in their favour they were adhivasis and in view of the provisions of Chapter IX-A. S. 240B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act they had become sirdars. This plea was repelled by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiffs-respondents having obtained a decree for possession from a competent Court against the appellants and having actually taken possession over the plots in execution of their decree in the year 1947 and the decree having become final before the date of vesting. Explanation III of S. 20 of the Act applied with the result that the appellants would be debarred from claiming adhivasi rights under S. 20(b). This view of the first appellate court was challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground firstly that Explanation III had to be read along with Explanation II which in express terms confined itself to a correction made under or in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and as such it could apply only in a case where there had been an order for correction in a proceeding under the Land Revenue Act. The second ground urged by him was that the decree of the Civil Court relied upon by the first appellate Court being without jurisdiction, was a nullity and should not have been relied upon in order to attract the application of Explanation III.

4. The learned Single Judge rejected the first contention. Explanation III