JUDGMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for injunction in respect of plot Nos. 77, 78 and 79 total area 750 links situate in village Nasiruddinpur, Pargana Mohamme-dabad, district Azamgarh.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plots in dispute were the khudkasht plots of one Kuber Singh which, through a sale deed dated 29th May 1911 and an exchange deed dated 6th March 1943 came to the plaintiffs, and he became the khudkasht-holder of these plots. In these khudkasht plots the plaintiffs dug a Bawali and over the Bhita of that Bawali they planted trees in large numbers with the result that the Bhita part of the land became its grove of the plaintiffs. It is said that after the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act they became bhumidhars of the grove but the Lekhpal had recorded the land in suit as Bhita and Talab and had entered the name of the plaintiffs in the remarks column of Khasra 1359F. It is further stated that by virtue of an order dated 26th November 1958 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer the land had been entered as the property of the Gram Samaj which had begun interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs; hence the suit after serving the requisite notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C.

3. Defendant No. 2 the Gram Samaj admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1, U.P. State contested the claim on the ground that plot No. 77 area 429 links was the Bhita of plot Nos. 78 and 79 which was a pond on the spot. It was said that it was in the same condition at the date of vesting hence it vested in the Gram Samaj. It was further said that the trees were self grown and scattered hence the plots in suit became the property of the Gram Samaj and the plaintiffs did not become the bhumidhars thereof. Pleas based on limitation and estoppel and about the invalidity of the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. were also taken.

4. Both the courts accepted the defence case that the property in suit vested in the Gram Samaj and dismissed the suit. Other legal pleas were decided against the defendants.

5. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court and have challenged the decisions of the two courts below. They contend that they have become bhumidhars of the plots in suit on the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the defendants have no right to interfere with their possession.

6. The admitted case as found by the lower appellate court is that the plots in suit were the khudkasht plots of the plaintiffs. In these khudkasht plots the plaintiffs had dug a tank and this tank was surrounded by Bhita on all sides and on the Bhita the plaintiffs who were the intermediaries had planted the trees in the year 1943. A commission was issued in this case and the report of the Commissioner which is on the record shows that the Commissioner found that the trees on the Bhita were in such numbers that it was in the shape of a grove. The area of the Bhita is 429 links a little less than half an acre over which there were 190 trees.

7. On this admitted and proved case of the parties and the finding of the lower appellate court the question for the decision of this Court is as to whether the plaintiffs became bhumidhars of the plots in suit on the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or not. On the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by virtue of Sec. 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all rights, title and interests of all the intermediaries vested in the State. The relevant portion of Sec. 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is as follows:-

6. When the notification under Sec. 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and say as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensue in the ar