JUDGMENT Hon’ble Praffulla C. Pant, J. This second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.1979, passed by Civil Judge, Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 04 of 1976, whereby the judgment and decree dated 08.03.1976, passed by Munsif Pithoragarh, in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1966, is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that a suit No. 60 of 1966 was instituted by plaintiffs / appellants under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for declaration and injunction in respect of the forestland lying between the plaintiff’s village Pilkhi and defendant’s villages Kalwe Farsola and Sartola, all three villages situated in Patti Palla Athigaon, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. It is pleaded in the plaint that the land in question lies within the territorial boundary of village Pilkhi, which is wrongly shown now, within the traditional boundaries of village Kalwe Farsola and Sartola, by the Settlement Authorities. The plaintiffs/appellants filed their objections to this change before the Assistant Record Officer decided the case holding that in the documents ‘Assi Saal’ and ‘Chuknama’, the boundary marks are not clearly visible on the spot. The plaintiffs/appellants as representatives of village Pilkhi, thereafter, filed the present suit against villagers of Kalwe Farsola and Sartola claiming old customary/easementary right of villagers of village Pilkhi over the disputed land alleging that the same lies in their traditional boundary. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs/appellants that villagers of their village had a right to collect fuel wood, grass as fodder, water and like facilities from the land in question by way of easementary right. After the traditional boundary of the defendants/ respondents is shown extended to the land in dispute, they have started interfering into the customary/easementary right of the villagers of village Pilkhi. As such, a permanent injunction restraining the villagers into the plaintiffs right of pasturage, grazing, fuel wood and panghat etc. was sought. 4. Defendants/respondents contested the suit and filed their written statement challenging the alleged traditional boundary pleaded by the plaintiffs/appellants. As such, a permanent injunction restraining the villagers into the plaintiffs right of pasturage, grazing, fuel wood and panghat etc. was sought. 4. Defendants/respondents contested the suit and filed their written statement challenging the alleged traditional boundary pleaded by the plaintiffs/appellants. It is pleaded in the written statement that during the settlement operations the land in dispute has been shown within the traditional boundary of village Kalwe Farsola and Sartola, as such, the plaintiffs/appellants cannot claim their customary or easementary right in respect of the land. The defendants/respondents defended the orders passed by the Settlement Authorities. 5. Learned Munsif, who tried the suit, framed following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether land in suit is within the traditional boundary of village Pilkhi? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get injunction as alleged in para 13(b) of the plaint? 3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiffs entitled? 6. The trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing of the parties, found that the land in dispute lies within the traditional boundary of village Pilkhi, and issue No. 1 was decided in affirmative. Issue No. 2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial court. The trial court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 08.03.1976. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, defendants filed their appeal before the lower appellant court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 04 of 1976. The lower appellate court, after hearing the parties, vide its judgment and order dated 26.03.1979, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of principle of law laid down in Fakir Singh Vs. Bhim Singh; reported in 1978 Allahabad Law Journal Pg. 1035, the civil court has no jurisdiction to determine the traditional boundary of the villages, which is the domain of the revenue authorities. Hence, this Appeal. Initially, this Second Appeal was filed in the year 1979 before the Allahabad High Court, from where it is received by transfer to this Court, under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7. No substantial question of law was formulated by the Allahabad High Court, but the Appeal was admitted on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal treating it to be substantial question of law. 7. No substantial question of law was formulated by the Allahabad High Court, but the Appeal was admitted on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal treating it to be substantial question of law. As such, substantial question of law involved in this case on which learned counsel for the parties made their submissions is as under: Whether the lower appellate court misinterpreted and misconstrued the provisions of Section 13 of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, if so, its effect? Answer to substantial question of law: 8. Section 13 of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XXXII of 1948) [repealed by the U.P. Act No. 08 of 1977], reads as under: “13. A suit may be filed in a civil court for a declaration or injunction, or for both- (a) in respect of the traditional boundary of a village, or (b) in respect of easement rights in unmeasured land.” The suit for declaration and injunction is filed by the plaintiffs/appellants in the year 1966 i.e. before 1977, where after, aforesaid Act was repealed vide U.P. Act No. 08 of 1977. As such, when the suit was filed the aforesaid provision was enforced to the villages, under litigation. 9. The lower appellate court has held that the trial court being civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the principle of law laid down in Faqir Singh Vs. Bhim Singh; reported in 1978 Allahabad Law Journal Pg. 1035. In said case learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has held that the boundaries of a village can be resettled in the course of settlement operations and any prior disputes as to the boundaries or other similar matters would be within the jurisdiction of the officers entrusted with the settlement work to decide. The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the order fixing the traditional boundaries of a village which is confirmed on appeal by the Record Officer. Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents contended that the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to the present case as it also pertains to the similarly situated villages of same district of Pithoragarh. Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents contended that the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to the present case as it also pertains to the similarly situated villages of same district of Pithoragarh. No doubt, the dispute in Faqir Singh (supra) case was also related to the traditional boundary of villages of the same district, but one fact which appears to have been ignored by the lower appellate court is that in the present case after rejection of the objections of the plaintiffs by the Assistant Record Officer, and the Record Officer left it open to the parties to get the dispute settled through the civil court. As such, in the present case, it cannot be said that the change in the traditional boundary in the latest settlement was confirmed by the Record Officer. This Court is unable to concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, as the same appears to be against the spirit of the legislated provisions contained in section 13 of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948. 10. The lower appellate court has completely ignored the fact that the title of the suit preceding paragraph 1 of the plaint itself shows that the suit has been instituted under Section 13 of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. As to the order passed by the Record Officer, whereby the dispute was left to be decided by the civil court, is concerned, the said plea taken in paragraph 7 of the plaint is not denied in the written statement. 11. Though, after the repeal of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, vide U.P. Act No. 08 of 1977, no suit for declaration of traditional boundary of a village, is now, maintainable before the civil court, but prior to the repeal of said Act, the provision was very much applicable to the suits, filed earlier. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here, Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. The same reads as under: “6. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here, Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. The same reads as under: “6. Effect of repeal.- Where any U.P. Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafer to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such remedy may be enforced and any such investigation or legal, proceedings may be continued and concluded, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.” 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as is clear from its Section 1 read with Schedule I did not apply to the areas of Kumaun and Garhwal. This Act in Uttar Pradesh contained provisions relating to survey and settlement and revision of maps and records. In Kumaun Division, which earlier consisted of all the districts of Kumaun and Garhwal, three settlements namely the Beckett’s Trail’s and Goose settlements took place during the British period in which the land of villages occupied by villagers was measured, which used to be called as ‘NAAP’ land (measured land) and rest of the village land used to be called ‘BENAAP’ land (unmeasured land). Also, the boundaries of the villages were demarcated by some identifiable points in the outer skirts of the villages. In the present case, the trial court has observed that the parties admitted the existence of the identifying points of the village boundaries, but its location was disputed regarding which the civil court had jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, as quoted above. In the present case, the trial court has observed that the parties admitted the existence of the identifying points of the village boundaries, but its location was disputed regarding which the civil court had jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Kumaun Nayabad and Waste Lands Act, 1948, as quoted above. The lower appellate court has misinterpreted and misconstrued the said provision by holding that civil court had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the substantial question of law stands answered. Finding of fact recorded by the trial court and not reversed by the lower appellate court : 13. Lower appellate court has allowed the appeal on the technical ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It has not reversed the finding of fact recorded by the trial court in its judgment. I have gone through the entire evidence on record in the case. This Court does not think it just and proper to remand such an old case of the year 1966 back to the lower appellate court. The finding recorded by the trial court, which is not reversed by the lower appellate court, appears to be based on the evidence on record and local inspection made by it. In this connection, it is pertinent to quote some of the paragraphs of the trial court’s judgment. The same are reproduced hereunder : “.........During my local inspection a long naked precipitous rock was pointed out to me to be the ‘Kala Kantha’ and this rock has been shown by the Amin in his map at point ‘Fk’ (Tha). According to the defendant the correct rock was at point ‘.k’ (Anna) shown in the Commissioner map. According to the plaintiff the correct ‘Kala Kantha’ rock is at point ‘>’ (Jha). I have seen the three rocks at point ‘Fk’ (Tha), ‘.k’ (Anna) and ‘>’ (Jha), in order to locate the correct ‘Kala Kantha’. In my opinion this ‘Kala Kantha’ rock situate at point ‘>’ (Jha) marked by the Commissioner and not at point ‘Fk’ (Tha) or ‘.k’ (Anna). Places ‘.k’ (Anna) and ‘Fk’ (Tha) shown in the Amin’s map are not rocks to invite a surveyor to take it as a boundary marks. These points are the mountain itself in the form of ridge curbs and they cannot be ‘Kala Kantha’ rock. The eastern boundary point of Sartola villages ‘Kala Kantha Ke Ware Neohe Pilkhi Sangh’. Places ‘.k’ (Anna) and ‘Fk’ (Tha) shown in the Amin’s map are not rocks to invite a surveyor to take it as a boundary marks. These points are the mountain itself in the form of ridge curbs and they cannot be ‘Kala Kantha’ rock. The eastern boundary point of Sartola villages ‘Kala Kantha Ke Ware Neohe Pilkhi Sangh’. It proves that ‘Kala Kantha’ a rock is directly on the east of village Sirtola and at this point the southern boundary of plaintiff’s village meet with Sartola village. The northern boundary description of village ‘Kalbe Parsola’ is ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula Sartola Sangh’. This Kala Patal Ka Raula has been admittedly located between point ‘j’ (Ra) and ‘;’ (Ya). Therefore, it is clear indicative that Kala Kantha at point ‘>’ (Jha) is ‘Tihada’ or point where the boundary of three villages meets each other. The correct location Kala Kantha is at point ‘>’ (Jha) is further corroborated by the situation of Kala Patal Ke Rauli, Kala Patal and the Kantha itself. The point Kala Kantha as suggested by the defendant at point ‘Fk’ (Tha) is apparently baseless and it cannoot be accepted as real Kala Kantha. This place marked ‘Fk’ (Tha) is more than 100 yards in length and it is all naked. On the other hand, Kala Kantha at point ‘>’ (Jha) is clearly a big stone not in the form of a ridge which attracts the eyes of a surveyor and it is the real Kala Kantha. The Amin Commissioner has shown ‘Kala Patal’ at a place pointed out by Sartola village and according to the Kalbe Pharsola the ‘Kala Patal’ has been shown between point V and VI and according to the plaintiffs ‘Kala Patal’ also extends towards Sartola village beyond ‘>’ (Jha) . In the Assi Sal description of the Sartola village, 16 Nalis of measured land has been shown as ‘Kalia Patal’. ‘Kalia Patal’, ‘Kala Kaffar’ and ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula’ are sufficient indication to point out the ‘Kantha’ at ‘>’ (Jha) as ‘Kala Kantha’. Now coming to the Chaknama of the plaintiffs village, it may well be appreciated from ‘Mera Devi’ at point ‘d’ (Ka) that the eastern boundary point of the plaintiffs village, proceeds towards east-south. ‘Kalia Patal’, ‘Kala Kaffar’ and ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula’ are sufficient indication to point out the ‘Kantha’ at ‘>’ (Jha) as ‘Kala Kantha’. Now coming to the Chaknama of the plaintiffs village, it may well be appreciated from ‘Mera Devi’ at point ‘d’ (Ka) that the eastern boundary point of the plaintiffs village, proceeds towards east-south. At ‘Mera Devi’ the plaintiffs village meets with the village of Nadoli alias Nanoli and thenceforward its takes it root to Nanoli Dhar and continuously through the said ‘Dhar’ which is a long one shown in the Commissioner’s map between ‘[k’ (Kha) and ‘x’ (Ga). From point ‘x’ (Ga) it advances to the south through a path called ‘Baldia Bata’ to finally reach ‘Saryu’ river at point ‘;’ (Ya) through the boundary ‘Kala Pathar Ki Rauli’ which is definitely a boundary mark between the contesting villages. ‘[k’ (Kha) ‘x’ (Ga) ridges were shown to me at the time of local inspection. This is a prominent ridge. Beyond this ridge towards the eastern side is the Nanoli village and naturally this ridge is a demarcating line between the plaintiffs village and that of Nanoli. ‘Baldia Bata’ has got its own significance as stated by the plaintiffs witness Sri Gulab Ram. The significance is that the name given to this path was used for specific purpose for taking bullocks to cultivate the land of ‘Sartola’ village of which the ‘Nanoli’ people was owners during the time Chaknamas were prepared. This ‘Baldia Bata’ being long in distance and then in use was considered to be of permanent character and, therefore, it was specified in the Chaknama description. Besides this path has all the more importance in describing it in the chaknama description as near about this path the eastern boundary point of ‘Kalbe Pharsola’ by name ‘Chili Dhar’ existed and in the same process this path met ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula’ ‘;’ (Ya) ‘j’ (Ra), which was the northern boundary point of ‘Sartola’ village meeting with ‘Kalbe Pharsola’. The importance of this path is thus self evident and it helped clarifying the boundaries of the contesting villages. These boundary descriptions are so unambiguously and inequivocally clear and distinct that there can possibly be no difficulty in considering this ‘Baldia Bata’ as a dividing link between the contesting villages. ............ The importance of this path is thus self evident and it helped clarifying the boundaries of the contesting villages. These boundary descriptions are so unambiguously and inequivocally clear and distinct that there can possibly be no difficulty in considering this ‘Baldia Bata’ as a dividing link between the contesting villages. ............ Now coming to their Chaknama their eastern boundary point has been pointed out as ‘Shrilan Ki Dhar Niche Mauza Pilhi Sangh’. This ‘Shrilan Ki Dhar’ does not find a mention in its Assi Sal boundary descritpion where their eastern boundary is described as ‘Chilai Dhar Ke Ware Pilkhi Sangh’. In the various Becketts’ settlement maps of the Kalbe Pharsola too their eastern boundary is described as ‘Chilai Ki Dhar’. It, therefore, reasonably follows that ‘Chilai Dhar’ and ‘Shrilan Ki Dhar’ are one and the same thing. The defendants felt shy to refer ‘Shrilan Ki Dhar’ or ‘Chilai Ki Dhar’ during the local inspection nor they have adduced any evidence in support of the existence of ‘Shrilan Dhar’ as their boundary point. Of course, a feeble attempt to locate ‘Chilai Ki Dhar’ between ‘=’ (Tra) and ‘K’ (Gyan) was made which is not the least tenable in view of its exact position located in the Beckett’s settlement map ............ ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula’ is an admitted fact and ‘Kala Patal’ too has been located between V and VI as pointed out by Kalbe Parsola people themselves to their Amin Sri K.D. Bhatt who on the order of the court had shown the new points with red letters. ‘Kala Patal Ki Rauli’ and ‘Kala Patal’ between points V and VI are crucial to determine that Kable Pharsola village boundary does not extend beyond point V and VI from where according to their Chaknama boundary description they proceed to ‘Shrilan Ki Dhar’ or ‘Chilai Ki Dhar’ which is shown in the Amin Commissioner’s map ‘b’ (E) ‘bZ’ (EE) towards ‘vk’ (Aa) and then to ‘SALENA DHAR’. Now coming to Sartola village, their eastern boundary meets with Pilkhi village at ‘Kala Kantha Ke Niche’. ‘Kala Kantha’ at ‘>’ (Jha) is directly towards the east of Sartola village and they meet Badoli village at Beria Salla Dhar which is shown between points ‘o’ (Va) and ‘y’ (La) which is their northern boundary point and their western boundary point is Saryu Ganga. Their southern boundary point is ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula Ware Pharsoli Sangh’. ‘Kala Kantha’ at ‘>’ (Jha) is directly towards the east of Sartola village and they meet Badoli village at Beria Salla Dhar which is shown between points ‘o’ (Va) and ‘y’ (La) which is their northern boundary point and their western boundary point is Saryu Ganga. Their southern boundary point is ‘Kala Patal Ka Raula Ware Pharsoli Sangh’. These boundary points are clear by themselves to exclude the disputed land from their village boundary.................” 14. For the reasons as discussed above, in an answer to substantial question of law, the lower appellate court has erred in law in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction, as such, the judgment and decree setting aside the decree passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. Therefore, this second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 26.03.1979, passed in Civil Appeal No. 04 of 1976, by Civil Judge, Almora, is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 08.03.1976, passed by Munsif Pithoragarh, in suit No. 60 of 1966, is restored. However, it is observed that, if the new Van Panchayat’s are constituted, during the pendency of this appeal, under new laws, the decree accordingly shall stand diluted. No order as to costs.