JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This is defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit for partition of several kinds of 'properties. The plaintiff claimed a half share in house properties, brick-kiln, bullock-carts, animals, foodgrains and also sirdari holding. In defence the plaintiff's share was denied and it was claimed that the appellant was the exclusive owner of the properties in suit. The trial court held that the plaintiff has established that he had a half share in the properties. It accordingly passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff's one half share. The appellate court has confirmed the findings and the decree.

2. For the defendant-appellant it was urged that the present suit was instituted on 2nd June, 1956. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act XVIII of 1956, which came into force on 28th May, 1956, had transferred the jurisdiction to entertain suits for partition of a sirdari holding from the civil court to a revenue court. With effect from 28th May, 1956, the civil courts could not entertain a suit under Section 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for division of a holding. The present suit sought partition of a sirdari holding. To that extent items not cognizable by the civil court. The decree, in so far as it seeks to declare the shares in sirdari holding, was without jurisdiction and void.

3. Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as it stood on the date of the institution, that is 2nd June, 1956, provided by sub-Sec. (1) :

"331 (1) Except as provided by or tinder this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, shall, notwithstanding, anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application or proceeding mentioned in column 3 thereof." So, a civil court cannot take cognizance of any suit mentioned in column 3 of the second schedule of the Act except as provided by or under the Act. A suit for division of sirdari holding under Section 176 is mentioned in that schedule. So, unless there is contrary provision in the Act, the civil court cannot take cognizance of such a suit."

4. Section 153(1) of the Act says :-

"Except as expressly permitted by this Act, the interest of a sirdar and asami shall not be transferable."

5. Section 331 (1) does not use the word "expressly". There the phrase used is "except as provided by or under this Act". It is thus apparent that the excepted provisions within meaning of Section 331 (1) need not be expressly laid down in the body of the Act. They can be inferred by implication of the other provisions of the Act. Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 331 provided that "except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or decree passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the schedule aforesaid". The phrase "except as hereinafter provided" was construed by a Division Bench of this Court in Jamuna Das v. Gulab Rani, 1965 ALJ 616 to mean that there was no absolute bar against the appeal.

6. Section 332-B was added to the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by Section 64 of the Amending Act XX of 1954. It provided that if in any suit relating to land instituted after the commencement of the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1954 or pending on that date a question whether any party to the suit was a sirdar, adhivasi or asami of the land arises, the civil court shall frame an issue on the question and submit it to the Collector for the decision of that issue only. Section 332-B was repealed by Section 79 of the U. P. Amending Act XXXVII of 1958. Between 1954 and 1958 the Legislature clearly contemplated that question as regards title to an agricultural holding as a sirdar may also arise before the civil courts. It is admitted that till 28th May, 1956, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain suits for division of holdings under Section 176 of the Act. This jurisdiction was taken away from the civil co