( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants from a decree for possession of a plot of land passed against them by the courts below. The suit was instituted against the appellants by the respondent on the following allegations:

"i am the owner and zamindar of plot np--424/1, situated in khewat khata No. 1 of village akbarpur Sagar. It was lying vacant. On a portion of it the defendants in my absence and without my consent and without any right or title constructed a house a year ago and have brought the remaining area of the plot into their use. "

It was contested on various grounds with which we are not concerned now. It was decreed by the trial court in 1947 and the appellants were allowed to remove the building within a certain time. The decree was affirmed on appeal in 1948. After the institution of the second appeal, the zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has come into force and the appellants contend that on account of the provisions of Sections 6 and 9 the respondent has lost his title and interest over the land in dispute, that the appellants have ceased to be liable to ejectment and that consequently the decree should be quashed. It is provided in Section 4 of the Act that from a date to be specified by the State Government all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and shall stand transferred to it free from all encumbrances. The date specified for this purpose by the Government is 1-7-1952 and by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 all estates stand transferred to, and vest in, the State. An estate is defined in the Act to mean "the area included under one entry in any khewat"; the plot in dispute is admittedly included under entry No. 1 of the khewat of village Akbarpur and is consequently an estate. The plot has thus vested in the State Government with effect from 1-7-1952. The consequences of vesting are enumerated in Section 6 of the Act. They include inter alia the extinction of all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries and their vesting in the State. The respondent admittedly is an intermediary and by virtue of Section 6, all his rights title and interest in the land in dispute have been extinguished and have vested in the State Government. The suit was brought by him on the ground that he was the proprietor of the land; since the vesting he has ceased to be the proprietor and is left with no right, title or interest. When the only ground on which the suit was based has disappeared the decree passed in his favour cannot be maintained. It is to be noted that the suit was not based on possessory title it was not a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Moreover he was not in possession of the land at the time of vesting, the possession admittedly being with the appellants; he might have been in possession prior to July 1945, but his possession was derived from his title and did not exist independently of it. When he lost the title, he lost the right to possession also. He admittedly lost actual possession in july 1945 and, therefore, on the date of vesting neither had he any title nor had he any possession nor had he any right to be in possession. The limitation for a suit under Section 9 of the Specific relief Act is six months. If a person wants to recover possession simply on the ground of his possession, he must sue within six months; otherwise he must sue on title and must show a better title than the defendants. The respondent could not show any title better than the appellants after they had remained in peaceful possession for a year or more. In any case he could not have any better title on the date of vesting. e. , so many years later.

( 2 ) ALL building situated within the limits of an estate belonging to, or held by, an intermediary, tenant or other person are to continue to belong to or to be held by, such intermediary, tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site is to be deemed to be settled with him by the State government on such