( 1. ) PLAINTIFFS legal representatives are the appellants. He had succeeded in trial Court but he lost in the Court below.

( 2. ) THE suit for declaration of title admittedly is based on sale-deed, Ex. P-1, executed by Second Respondent, Udayabhan who, according to the plaintiff, being recorded as gair Maurusi tenant in Khasra Ex. PD-2, for Samvat 2007, could validly confer tide on him, The lower appellate Court, in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, held that there was discrepancy in survey numbers in the different Khasras produced in the case which was reflected in the sale-deed vitiating plaintiffs claim. Therefore, it was firstly held the Plaintiffs suit being not for rectification of the sale-deed, he could not pray for declaration. Secondly, it was held, udayabhans title based on his tenancy right was not proved because no rent receipts were proved in the case.

( 3. ) GOVERNMENT Advocate, Shri J. S. L. Sinha, with his usual vigour and vehemence, supported the impugned judgment and decree. He has drawn my attention to Section 6 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, for short, Z. A. Act, and Section 257 of the m. P. Land Revenue Code, for short, the code in order to buttress the conclusion of the Court below.

( 4. ) HOWEVER, I have no doubt at all that the impugned judgment of reversal is not sustainable in law for several reasons. Firstly, because of what is to be read in Section 6 itself, relied on by Shri Sinha, what is contemplated thereunder is that "the Suba shall take charge of all lands other than occupied lands and home-steads and of all interests vesting in the State, under Section 3". What clearly escaped the attention of the Court below is the fact that the suit land was "occupied land", as statutorily envisaged and it would therefore, remain "occupied" in the manner prescribed in the Z. A. Act aforesaid, as also in the parallel enactment, namely, M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, samvat 2007, for short, Samvat 2007 Act Indeed, Section 3 of the Z. A. Act clearly contemplates vesting merely of "proprietary rights" in the State; it did, in no way, determine the interest of any person in the "occupied land" defined in the same Act, in section 2 (f), which is as follows :-

"2 (f ). "occupied land" means land held immediately before the date of vesting of proprietary rights in the State under Section 3, in ex-proprietary, Pukhta maurusi, Mamuli Maurusi or Gair Maurusi tenure of land held by sub-tenants or tenants of a sub-tenants or land held as Khud-Kashta or land comprised in a dwelling house together with any court-yard attached garden, trees standing in such court-yard and out-buildings and includes any out-building used for purposes connected with agriculture or horticulture and any tank appurtenant to such dwelling house;"

( 5. ) I have perused the Khasra for Samvats 2007 and 2008, proved as Exs. PD-2and pd-3. In the first document the survey number is shown as 4618 with a total area of 19 bighas and 3 biswas. In these documents name of Udayabhan does appear and he is also recorded as gair Maurusi tenant in very categorical terms. Shri Sinha relies on another khasra of Samvat 2008 itself, which is also marked Ex. PD-3, wherein the name of udayabhan does not appear. The entry therein reads"jahansingh Bashhare Sadar". What I would like to say in this connection is only this: in the other Ext. PD-3 udayabhans name does appear and indeed against both parts of survey number 4618, namely Parts 2 and 3 and that this Khasra is also for Samvat 2008. Shri Sinhas suggestion is that there is likelihood of some "bungling" in khasras of the plaintiff. Counsel submits, the plaintiff has to be denied relief therefor, because he has not proved his own case. But the question is, whether the Khasras, which are documents of the defendants (State of madhya Pradesh) namely, Exs. PD-2 and PD-3, do prove plaintiffs case. Despite the cloud created by what Shri Sinha calls "bungling" in the Khasras, I see no