( 1. ) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendant, against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

( 2. ) IN brief the suit of plaintiff is that Village Nipanya Tonk was the Zamindari village of erstwhile Gwalior Estate and plaintiff was the then Zamindar of the said village. On 2-10-1951 the Zamindari system was abolished on account of the enforcement of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act Samvat 2008 (Act No. 13 of 1951), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". According to plaintiff the suit land was in the self cultivation of plaintiff soon before the date of vesting, i. e. , 2-10-1951 as he started cultivation only soon before the date of vesting. Since the land was in the self cultivation of plaintiff before the date of vesting, he became "pacca Krishak" by operation of law and his name was also mutated as such in the revenue record. However, in Samvat 2012 plaintiff was shown as trespasser in the revenue record and this entry was made behind back of plaintiff without issuing notice to him and, therefore, since the suit land was in self cultivation of plaintiff before the date of vesting, he became "pacca Krishak" and on coming into force of M. P. Land Revenue Code in 1959 he became Bhumiswami by operation of law. Plaintiff after sending a notice under Section 80, CPC filed the present suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right with a further relief that he is entitled to get his name mutated as Bhumiswami in the revenue record.

( 3. ) THE defendant-State of Madhya Pradesh resisted the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement they admitted the status of plaintiff to be Ex-Zamindar of the village and also admitted that the suit land was in his Zamindari area. But, it was denied that the suit land was in the self cultivation of plaintiff before the date of vesting. According to defendant, since suit land was not in self cultivation of plaintiff and he was also not so recorded in the revenue record, it can not be said that plaintiff acquired pacca tenancy right after the abolition of Zamindari system and therefore he did not become Bhumiswami on coming into force of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). In a special plea, an objection was also taken that after the dismissal of the application of plaintiff, filed under Section 57 (2) of the Code on 6-11-1971 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit. In Para 8 it has been pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation.

( 4. ) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff. The first appeal which was preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit of plaintiff has been decreed. Hence this second appeal.

( 5. ) ON 19-8-1991 this second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

(1) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was illegally held to be cultivating suit land as Khud Kast on the date of vesting result in accrued of Bhumiswami rights ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation in view of the Section 57 (2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code ?

( 6. ) REGARDING substantial question of law No. (1) : It has been contended by Shri S. S. Garg, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate that plaintiff has filed certified copy of Khasra of Samvat 2008 (Year 1951) which is Ex. P-1. According to him in order to attract provision of Section 4 (2) of the Act the land of proprietor should be Khud Kast and should also be recorded as such in the annual village papers before the date of vesting. Since plaintiff has failed to submit Khasra of Samvat 2007, i. e. , before the date of vesting in order to show the applicability of Section 4 (2) of the Act, thus the land vests in the State.

( 7. ) SHRI Kochatta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff has submitted that Khasra of Samvat 2008 is on record in which the land has been shown as Khud Kast a