OAK, J. : This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. In 1940, Kedar Math appellant filed a suit against the present respondents for their ejectment under S. 180, U.P. Tenancy Act (hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). That suit was decreed; and the appellant obtained possession. Subsequently the respondents were reinstated under S. 27 of U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act (No. X of 1947 - hereafter referred to as the 1947 Act). Soon after the respondents' reinstatement, the appellant, filed the present suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen. This civil suit for the defendants' ejectment was decreed by the First Additional Munsif of Gorakhpur. The defendants appealed. The appeal was allowed by the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur; and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The learned Civil Judge held that a person who was reinstated under S. 27 of the 1947 Act is not liable to be ejected again. Kedar Nath plaintiff has, therefore, come up in second appeal.

2. When the second appeal came tip for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the appellant relied upon a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in "Sri Ram Pathak v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1956 All LJ 343. The learned Single Judge considered that that decision required reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the case, to a Division Bench. When the matter was considered by a Division Bench, the Bench also thought that the previous decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pathak's case, 1956 All LJ 343 is not correct. The case has, therefore, been referred to a Full Bench.

3. The main question for consideration in this case is whether, in the light of Sub-Section (5) of S. 27 of the 1947 Act, the subsequent suit for ejectment of the respondents is maintainable. The head note of S. 27 of the 1947 Act is :

"Reinstatement of certain ejected tenants." But the operation of S. 27 is not confined to tenants. Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 27 deal with ex-tenants. But cl. (c) deals with persons ejected under S. 180 of the Tenancy Act. In other words, cl. (c) provides for reinstatement of former trespassers. Sub-Section (5) of S. 27 of the 1947 Act run thus :

"On reinstatement the rights and liabilities of the applicant existing on the date of his ejectment or dispossession in respect of the holding or any part thereof from which he was ejected or dispossessed, shall revive subject to the proviso to Sub-Section (3)."

In the instant case the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of S. 27 has no application. The question is whether, after their reinstatement under Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of S. 27, the respondents remained liable to be ejected again by virtue of Sub-Section (5) of S. 27.

4-5. That question came up for consideration in 1956 All LJ 343. It was held in that case that, trespassers who had not completed even two years at the time when they were previously ejected would be liable to be ejected upon a fresh suit.

6. It was urged for the defendants-respondents that, upon the view taken by the Court in Sri Ram Pathak's case, 1956 All LJ 343 reinstatement under S. 27 of the 1947 Act would prove futile. Reference was made to Sub-Section (4) of S. 27. Sub-Section (4) lays down that, the applicant shall not be reinstated in a holding unless he pays to the land-holder compensation for improvements. It was contended that, it would be futile to pay compensation to the land-holder, if the applicant is again liable for ejectment in a fresh suit. One must, however, remember that it is for the applicant to decide whether it is worthwhile obtaining reinstatement under S. 27 of the 1947 Act. If the appellant apprehends fresh ejectment, he need not avail of the relief provided to S. 27 of the 1947 Act.

7. In Sri Ram Pathak's case, 1956 All LJ 343 it was pointed out that, by S. 32 of the 1947 Act, the period of limitation for ejectment of a trespasser has been reduced from three years to two years. The result is that certain trespassers, who have been reinstated under S. 27