1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.8.1997 passed by learned First Additional Judge, Mundwara to the Court of District Judge, Mundwara in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1993 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

2. The facts, in brief, for the purposes of disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right in respect to the immovable property the description has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject matter of the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on 24.6.1993 with a further relief that the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries be restrained from interfering in their possession. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners in Bhumiswami right in respect to the suit property and also the various superstructures built thereupon. First plaintiff, Radhika Katare bought the suit property in Malik Makbooja right vide sale deed dated 24.5.1948 from its previous owner, viz . Church of England Zenana Mission Society ( hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) a Charitable Trust which was in occupation since the time immemorial to carry on its religious activties like running of school and orphanage, etc. Further it has been pleaded by plaintiffs that originally the suit property belonged to one. Miss Elizabeth Branch, Spinster residing at Pachmarhi in Malik Makbooja rights who vide registered transter/sale deed dated 21.3.1906 sold out the suit property in favour of the above said Society in Malik Makbooja right including the superstructure built thereupon and various buildings in the nature of hostel, orphanage, houses, messauges, tenements and well etc. After having purchased the suit property by first plaintiff he in some portion installed an Oil mill, namely, Shankar Oil Mill and also raised various constructions from time to time with due permission of Municipal Corporation, Katni and rented out some of them to various tenants, who are in all 28 in number. In para 7 and 8 of the plaint it has been pleaded that land revenue was fixed and enhanced from time to time by the erstwhile Government. In para 10 it has been pleaded that after a period of 37 years first plaintiff Radhika Prasad all of a sudden received a notice on 24.6.1991 from Naib Tehsildar Nazul, Katni to the effect that he was in possession of the Nazul land on 30 years’ permanent lease from the Government on annual rent fo Rs. 126.56 paise vide order passed in Revenue Case No.17/VII/5/51-52 which had expired long back and he should take immediate steps else legal action would be taken against him for its eviction etc. According to the plaint averments made in para 11 of the plaint, first plaintiff Padhika Prasad Katre is an ordinary old business man who is not acquainted with the law and above case of 1952 was also not within his memory nor the findings given in that case. Believing the above notice of Naib Tehsildar to be correct he was advised to make an application for renewal of the lease immediately without wasting any time so as to save his immovable property (the disputed property) of huge valuation,but although he moved such an application it was not pressed and the same was dismissed.

3. Further it has been pleaded by the plaintiffs that since the suit land was declared abadi to be used as building sites, according to Section 219 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (for short “the Revenue Act of 1917”) every old occupations were validated and the sites were allowed to be retained as owner there of and these sites were made heritable and transferable by the Government. Further it has been pleaded that according to the provisions of the Madhaya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (in short “the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act”) all the abadi sites were required to be settled with the occupants there of and by