The definition of 'proprietor' in Section 2(m) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, includes a Thekedar of proprietary right or interest, but not a mere lessee from the Government.

Hidayatullah, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of Bhutt. The respondents filed a suit for possession of 815.40 acres of land and Rs. 1.900 as damages against the appellant. The trial Judge, Shri S. M. I. Alvi, decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession of land and Rs. 1,500, as damages. The defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chhindwara, who upheld the decree of the trial Court. The defendant's second appeal also failed before the Single Bench of this Court.

2. In order to appreciate the points in controversy, it is necessary to go into the previous history of the lands. Raja Gokuldas the grand-father of the plaintiff-respondents' mother Rajkumaribai) along with his nephew Rai Bahadur Ballabhdas was the proprietor of village Chhuie in Seoni Tahsil The said area of land, which at that time was about 803 acres and classed as 'forest area', was adjacent to the village Chhuie and formed part of the village, as per revenue records. It was at the time of the Settlement in the year 1918 that this area along with some more land, that is, in all 815.40 acres, was formed into a separate survey number 359/1 and named as village Dundal-Kheda.

3. Raja Gokuldas and his nephew Ballabhdas laid claim to the said forest area in proprietary right, which claim was disputed by the Government. Ultimately, the dispute was settled. The agreement provided that the claimants gave up their claim of proprietary interest and that Government gave the lands on a perpetual lease, which was transferable and heritable, A formal deed to this effect was executed by the parties on 29-10-1904. The lessees were to pay Rs. 25 as premium or such other sums as might be fixed at the time of the Settlement. The lessees were permitted to utilise the lands in any way they liked subject to the provisions of section 124 of the C. P. Land Revenue Act, 1881, and the rules framed thereunder.

4. At a family partition later, the village Chhuie along with the forest fell to the share of Raja Gokuldas, who was succeeded by his son, Diwan Bahadur Jeevandas, who along with his son Seth Govinddass, executed a trust deed, dated 24-4-1915, in favour of the plaintiffs' mother, Rajkumaribai (daughter of Diwan Bahadur Jeevandas) regarding the said forest lands and some other property. The deed of trust provided that Rajkumaribai was to be the beneficiary during her life-time and the executants were to be the trustees. After Rajkumaribai's death, the trustees were to transfer the trust property to her sons unconditionally, who would (become full owners. It was in accordance with the trust that the plaintiff-respondents became owners of the disputed lands, now known as village Dundal-Kheda after their mother's death.

5. During Rajkumaribai's life-time, a dispute again arose as to the interest held by the lessees. A claim for proprietary interest was advanced by the lessees. Recommendations by the revenue authorities for grant of proprietary interest were again made on the eve of the Settlement of the year 1918. But ultimately the claim to proprietary right was negatived. The forest lands along with more land were formed into a survey number, No. 335/1. and formed into a village known as Dundal-Kheda and separately recorded as "Milkiyat Sarkar" liable to pay Rs. 40/- as land revenue annually. The rights of the lessees continued to be governed by the agreement of 29-10-1904.

6. After the date of vesting, namely, 31-3-1951, as per Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1910 (No. 1 of 1951), the Deputy Commissioner acting on behalf of the Government took possession of the entire lands of Dundal-Kheda, along with the felled timber, on the assumption, that the property vested in the State. Hence the respondents filed the present suit. The questions involved in the present case are these:--

(i) What was the status or the tenure of the lessees on the appointed date ?

(ii) Whether the villag