Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial questions of law formulated and to be answered by this Court in Plaintiffs' second appeal are as under:-

(i) Whether Ramcharan, Malgujar was in possession of the suit lands prior to the date of vesting?

(ii) Whether the said Ramcharan (Malgujar), who was the grand father of plaintiff No. 1, acquired the right and interest in the lands on account of he being in possession earlier to the date of vesting and the plaintiff succeeded his right and interest through Gayaram and became the owner of the suit properties?

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court]

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are as under:-

2.1 Shri Ramcharan was proprietor of village Bundeli. Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur. He died in the year 1954, leaving son Gayaram. Gayaram died in the year 1982, leaving two sons Ramswaroop and Ramgulam. In mutual partition, the suit land came in to possession of Ramswaroop. Plaintiff No. 1 is son of Gayaram and plaintiff No. 2 is son of Ramswaroop. They instituted a suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction with respect to land situated at village Bundeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur. The description of the lands and their area are as under:-

S. No. Khasra No. Aera

1. 28/1 3.17 acre

2. 30/2 0.58 acre

3. 222/1 0.20 acre

4. 222/2 0.09 acre

5. 222/3 0.10 acre

6. 224 0.08 acre

7. 331 0.12 acre

8. 25 0.01 acre

9. 335 0.10 acre

10. 365 0.20 acre

11. 228 1.05 acre

Total 5.70 acre

2.2 It is the case of the plaintiffs that grandfather of the plaintiff No. 1-Shri Ramcharan being proprietor was holding the lands as a title holder and continuing in possession for last 60-70 years i.e. prior to coming into force of Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1950").

2.3 It was further pleaded that Shri Ramcharan died in the year 1954 and the lands were inherited by his son Gayaram. Gayaram died in the year 1982, thereafter, Ramswaroop and Ramgulam being the sons of Gayaram, inherited the suit property. In mutual partition, the suit land came in to possession of Ramswaroop, but the suit land bearing Khasra No. 28/1, area 3.17 acres has wrongly been recorded as a grass land ¼?kkl t+ehu½ in revenue records, due to mistake on the part of State authorities and the encroachment proceeding has been drawn by State, in which they are likely to be dispossessed from the suit land leading to filing of the suit for declaration of title and further relief of permanent injunction restraining the State and its Authorities from interfering with their peaceful possession.

2.4 The defendant/State filed his written statement stating inter alia that the part of suit land stood recorded in the name of the Government in the revenue record as Nistar Land earmarked for the Nistar rights of the villagers, and the part of suit lands are earmarked for roads and the name of the plaintiffs have been corrected by order dated 30/09/1995 passed by the Additional Collector Bilaspur, which has been affirmed in revision by Commissioner on 27/08/1999. Therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

2.5 The Trial Court upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06/08/2005, dismissed the suit finding inter alia that:--

(i) Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land as Khasra No. 28/1 and 28/2 are entered into revenue record as grass land ¼?kkl t+ehu½;

(ii) Khasra Nos. 525 and 30/2 are recorded as land beneath the water ¼ikuh ds uhps t+ehu½;

(iii) Khasra Nos. 222/1, 2, 3, 224, 331, 335, 365 are recorded as grass land ¼?kkl t+ehu½;

(iv) Khasra No. 228 is meant for road ¼dPph lM+d½; and,

(v) Khasra No. 25 is recorded as land beneath the water ¼ikuh ds uhps t+ehu½ in the name of the Government.

2.6 On appeal being pr