( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother, Naik J. I fully agree with the conclusions of my Lord the Chief Justice. I had not at first intended to record a separate opinion, but since the main question involved is important, I feel, upon reflection, that I ought to express my opinion.

( 2 ) THE question is whether the lands covered by Clauses (i) to (iv) as enumerated in paragraph 7 of the opinion of my Lord the Chief Justice were Khudkasht lands within the meaning of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917 ).

( 3 ) CLAUSE (5) of Section 2 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, which defines khudkasht, is as under:

"'khudkasht' means that part of the home-farm of a mahal which is cultivated by the proprietor as such and which is not sir-land: Explanation (1) -- Land allowed to lie fallow according to agricultural practice shall be deemed to be cultivated. Explanation (2) -- In this definition 'proprietor' includes a transferee of proprietary rights in possession, a thekadar or headman with protected status, a mortgagee with possession and a lessee holding under a lease from year to year or for a period exceeding one year, but not a malikmakbuza. "

( 4 ) IT has been contended that since 'agriculture' or 'agricultural practice' has not been defined in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, the expression 'agricultural practice' occurring in the first explanation reproduced above should be construed with reference to the meaning given to "agriculture' in a later enactment namely, the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920 (I of 1920 ). Arguments based upon analogy may be misleading and, in my view, it is not safe to pronounce upon the meaning of the provisions in one Act with reference to the provisions in another which may not be in pari materia. In this connexion, it may be mentioned that while the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue and other matters relating to land and liabilities incidental thereto, the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920, was placed on the statute book mainly to consolidate and amend fie law relating to agricultural tenancies. It may be noted in particular, that, although under the Tenancy Act of 1920 diversion of land to non-agricultural purposes continued to be a ground for ejectment of occupancy tenants, 'agriculture' was defined for the first time in wide terms to include purposes subservient to agriculture. This became necessary in order to extend a large measure of protection, to occupancy tenants because previously the cultivation of singhara (water nuts), the planting of a mango grove and grazing of cattle were not held to be agricultural purposes: Battoo v. Narainprasad, 11 Nag LR 49: (AIR 1915 Nag 49) and Hari v. Wanu, 11 Nag LR 122: (AIR 1915 Nag 57 (2) ). The basis on which statutes in pari materia are resorted to for construing, where necessary, any enactment is the assumption that all statutes which relate to the same subject-matter were enacted in accord with the same legislative policy and that together they constitute a harmonious system of law. It is an extension of the principle that one part of a statute is properly called in to help the construction of another. Where however, a definition is enacted in a later Act to effectuate a purpose not germane to the earlier Act, this principle does not apply. I am therefore, of the view that for expounding the meaning of the expression 'agricultural practice' occurring in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, resort cannot be had to the definition of 'agriculture' in the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920, 'especially' when it was enacted subsequently.

( 5 ) SINCE the cases, out of which the appeals under consideration arise, deal with the rights of ex-proprietors under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,