1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this defendant's second appeal is as under:-

“Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit and thereby granting decree in favour of the plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse to the record.”

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. The plaintiff brought an action for declaration of title of the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 269/1, 269/2, 269/3, 277/1, 277/2 and 281 situate in Village Bhadoriya Khar, Tahsil & District Bilaspur stating inter-alia that he was the malgujar of the said village and the said land is khudkasht land and recorded in his name in mutual bandobast 1929-30; as he is in possession of the said land, he filed application under Section 57 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and that has been dismissed on 8-8-1996. On the aforesaid pleading suit for declaration of title was filed. The suit was based on the provisions contained in the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950).

3. Averment of the plaint was opposed by the defendant stating that the suit property is Government property and the plaintiff has no right and title over the suit property and he is entitled for declaration.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership over the suit land, as title and possession, both, are not established, which was reversed by the first appellate Court granting decree in favour of the plaintiff against which this second appeal has been filed in which substantial question of law formulated has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Arun Sao, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant/ defendant, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the decree of the trial Court by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and has failed to consider Section 4(1) & (2) of the Act of 1950 and thereby recorded a finding which is contrary to record, as such, it is liable to be set aside restoring the decree of the trial Court.

6. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/LRs of the original plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely justified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff, as the original plaintiff has established his title as per the provisions contained in Section 4(1) & (2) of the Act of 1950.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. The plaintiff's suit is mainly based on the fact that the suit land is khudkasht land recorded in his name and based on the provisions contained in Section 4(1) & (2) of the Act of 1950. Khudkasht is not defined in the Act of 1950, but Section 2(g) of the said Act defines “home-farm” which includes khudkasht. Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 reads as follows:-

(g) "home-farm" means—

(1) in relation to the Central Provinces —

(i) land recorded as sir and khudkasht in the name of proprietor in the annual papers for the year 1948-49.

(ii) land acquired by a proprietor by surrender from tenants after the year 1948-49 till the date of vesting.

(2) in relation to merged territories, that part of the land under the personal cultivation of the proprietor on the date of vesting which was similarly under cultivation in the agricultural year 1949-50 and which he is entitled to retain on the termination of proprietary tenure under any instrument having the force of law and applicable to such tenure.

Explanation.—Land under personal cultivation includes land allowed to lie fallow in accordance with the usual agricultural practice; but does not include any land in lawf