MOOTHAM, C. J.:- Two questions have been referred to this Full Bench for decision. The circumstances in which the reference has been made are these:

2. In 1950 or early in 1951 the petitioner, who was the tenant-in-chief of a certain plot of land, filed a suit under S.180, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) for the ejectment of the third respondent on the ground that he was a trespasser. On 11-5-1951, the petitioner obtained a decree, and thereafter in execution of his decree he recovered possession of the plot. The third respondent appealed, but before his appeal could be heard a vesting order to take effect from 1-7-1952, was made under S.4, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act or the Zamindari Abolition Act) which came into force on 26-1-1951.

3. The Act abolished the zamindari system and made far reaching changes in the system of land tenure. Under S.20 those persons who on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, that is on 30-6-1952, were inter alia recorded as occupants of any land (other than grove land or land to which S.16 applied) in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 Fasli were to be called adhivasis and were, subject to the provisions of the Act, entitled to take or retain possession of such land.

4. The third respondent was so recorded as occupant of the plot in suit, and on 9-5-1953, the Commissioner allowed his appeal on the ground that under S.20 he had become an adhivasi and as such was entitled to possession of the plot. The petitioner filed a second appeal to the Board of Revenue which on 28-8-1953, dismissed his appeal.

5. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution in which he prayed that the order of the Board of Revenue be quashed on the ground that it was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. His contention was that the provisions of S.20 of the Act had no application to a pending suit or appeal and he relied on the case of - Bikram Singh v. Sunehra, AIR 1954 All 434 (A) in which that view was taken. The Bench before whom this petition came for hearing was of opinion that the decision in Bikram Singhs case (A) required reconsideration, and although that case was distinguishable on the facts from the case before it, inasmuch as the suit in Bikram Singhs case (A) had been filed under S.175 of the Tenancy Act, the ratio decidendi appeared to apply with no less force to a case in which the suit had been filed under S.180 of that Act. The Bench has therefore referred to this Full Bench the following questions:

"(i) Would Section 20 affect the rights of the parties to the suit even though the suit had been filed prior to coming into force of Section 20?

(ii) Whether the provisions of the U.P. Land Tenures (Legal Proceedings) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1952, would make any difference to applying the provisions of Section 20 to pending suits or appeals?"

6. Section 20 of the Zamindari Abolition Act confers upon the persons referred to therein the status of an adhivasi, and it expressly provides that a person who has acquired that status shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of the Act, to take or retain possession of the land of which he is the tenant or sub-tenant or of which he was recorded as occupant. Section 234 further provides that an adhivasi shall be liable to ejectment from the land held by him only on one or more of the three grounds stated therein.

7. The question to be determined is whether a defendant in a suit under S.180, Tenancy Act who has acquired the status of an adhivasi during the pendency of the suit or appeal can set up his right to possession as an answer to the plaintiffs claim. In our opinion, he is entitled to do so. It is no doubt a general rule that where the intention of the Legislature is doubtful an enactment will not be construed so as to affect vested rights of action; but the matter is one of constr