( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal, who has lost in two Courts below. I have heard extensively counsel for both sides in this matter because I wanted to be sure both on facts and on law to consider appellants' grievance that Courts below have erroneously decreed the suit.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the suit land belonged originally to one Dulichand, who died in 1949. His widow Shyamkunwar and two daughters, Parvatibai and Rambatibai, survived him. It has come in evidence that Shyamkunwar died in the year 1959 and during her lifetime she adopted Parvatibai's son Balkishan, the plaintiff-respondent. Indeed, the transaction is evidenced by a registered deed dated 31-3-1958, proved as Ex. P. 1 in the suit. The position in law is also that the Hindu Succession Act was made applicable in Madhya Pradesh in the year 1961 and any devolution of interest in agricultural land prior to 1961, as in the instant case, could take place only in accordance with the provisions of Revenue Laws such as Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and M. P. Land Revenue Code.

( 3 ) ON these facts, therefore, the sole question to be considered is, whether the Courts below rightly held that a