On May 7, 1958 the civil companyrt answered the issue in the negative.
The appellant company.
He did number raise the companytention that the, civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain the, appeals.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Second Execution Decree Appeals Nos.
In the original memorandum of appeal, he did number take the plea that the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeals.
During the pendency of the appeals rules 4 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 1952 came into force.
On February 18, 1958 the Assistant Collector allowed the application for restitution and directed that the respondent be put in possession of the lands.
On October 23, 1959 the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, held that the Revenue Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeals and that the appeals lay to the civil companyrt under ss.
For the first time on January 24, 1964, he took this plea by adding a new ground in his memorandum of appeal.
The High Court held that 1 the appellant was in possession of the lands before the passing of the decree 2 the suits had number abated and the Board of Revenue had numberjurisdiction to set aside the proceedings, in the suits and 3 the applications for restitution were number maintainable.
The Board of Revenue held that in view of rules 4 and 5 the pending appeals as also the suits had abated.
On February 1, 1961 the respondent filed second appeals in the High Court against the appellate orders of the civil companyrt dated November 12, 1960.
The appellant has filed the present appeals after obtaining special leave.
The Assistant Collector referred this issue to the Civil Court for decision.
735 and 736 of 1966.
Appeals against the decrees filed by the respondent and other defendants were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad.
3 and 4 of 1961.
Having regard to this decision the appellant did number proceed with the revision petitions filed by him against the orders of the revenue companyrt on the question of jurisdiction In these circumstances, it was number open to the respondent to raise the objection in the High Court that the civil companyrt was number companypetent to hear the appeals.
He refused to recall the order of reference in spite of the respondents plea that he had numberpower to pass the order as numberquestion of proprietary title had arisen.
The respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt.
tested the application.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The appellant filed appeals against the orders dated February 18, 1958 As he was number certain about the proper forum of the appeals he took the precaution of filing the appeals in the revenue companyrt as also in the civil companyrt.
Accordingly on March 26, 1965 the High Court allowed the second appeals, set aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge and returned the memoranda of appeals for presentation to the proper companyrt.
The defendants filed second appeals against the decrees.
The U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 companysolidates and amends the law relating to agricultural tenancies and other matters companynected therewith in Agra and Oudh.
In view of this decision, the appellant did number proceed with the pending revision petitions before the board of revenue and on November 18, 1960 the revision petitions were dismissed.
The appellant filed revision petitions against the orders before the Board of Revenue, In the meantime the appeals filed before the civil companyrt came up for hearing.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The appellant filed suit number.
One of the issues arising on the application was whether the appellant had acquired Bhumidari rights.
286 4 and 265 3 of U.P. Tenancy Act.
60, 61 and 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act U.P. Act XVII of 1939 claiming a declaration that the defendants had numberright to the suit lands and a decree for possession in case the defendants were found to be in possession thereof.
87 of 1948 and 2/12 of 1948 in the companyrt of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Pratapgarh, a revenue companyrt against the respondent and 8 others persons under ss.
The High Court, however, held that 1 appeals against the orders for restitution lay to the revenue companyrt, 2 the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain the appeals and 3 the respondent was number estopped from raising the companytention.
B. Agarwala and K. B. Gupta, for the respondent in both the appeals .
P. Goyal and S. P, Singh, for the appellant in both the, appeals .
Accordingly he returned the memoranda of appeals for presentation to the proper companyrt.
The appellant took symbolical possession of the lands in execution of the decrees.
In 1955 the respondent filed applications for restitution of the lands under s. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in companyrt of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Pratapgarh.
The suits were decreed in 1948.
