K.L. Pandey, J.

The unsuccessful Plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of her suit for declaration of her title to, and possession of, 7.29 acres of land, rental Rs. 3-8-0, more particularly described in schedule A of the plaint.

The undisputed facts are these. One Dauram was the thekadar gaontia of village Suwatal. He died leaving behind him surviving 3 sons, Baijnath, Raghunath and Sukhiram. Prior to the year 1915, there was a partition amongst the 3 sons. The disputed bhogra land was allotted to Raghunath, who subsequently obtained a separate settlement parcha in respect of that land assessed to Rs. 2-12-0 as rent. Raghunath and after him his son Anjorsingh remained in separate possession of the land till 1942 when the latter died. The land was then recorded in the name of Mst. Sukbmat, widow of Anjorsingh, and she remained in possession thereof till her death on 18 May 1949. Thereupon, Anand-singh (Defendant), grandson of Baijnath, who was the then thekadar gaontia of the village, applied for mutation of his name as holder of the bhogra land on the ground that the last holder had died without heirs. The objection raised by the Plaintiff, who is one of the four daughters of Anjorsingh and Mst. Sukhmat, prevailed and her name was accordingly ordered to be mutated by the Additional Naib-Tehsildar. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sarangarh, set aside that order and directed that mutation be effected in the name of the Defendant The Plaintiff's appeal against that order was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the short ground that no second appeal lay against an order of that nature. Sometime after the 18 May 1949, the Defendant took possession of the disputed land of which he continues to be in possession.

The Plaintiff claimed that she was the heir entitled to inherit the disputed land under the general law as well as under the Central Provinces States Land Tenure Order, 1949, which came into force in the territory of the erstwhile Sarangarh State on 15 March 1949. She averred that although Mst. Sukhmat left behind 4 daughters, she (Plaintiff) alone was entitled to inherit the land because she and her husband all along lived with her parents. She also stated that her application under Section 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro prietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, was not enquired into and the land was recorded in the name of the Defendant.

The defence was that the disputed land was bhogra and that its devolution was governed by the Sarangarh State Wazib-ul-arz and not by the Central Provinces States Land Tenure Order, l949. Under the Wazib-ul-arz, the Plaintiff was not an heir entitled to inherit the bhogra land. Further, since the Defendant was in possession, his name was directed to be recorded under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. It was also pleaded that, on the question of title to the disputed land, the decree in Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1950 between the parties operated as res judicata.

The defence prevailed in the lower Court and the suit was accordingly dismissed. In this appeal, the Plaintiff has challenged all adverse findings.

The main question for consideration is whether the devolution of bhogra land which had been partitioned is governed by the Central Provinces States Land Tenure Order, 1949, or by the State Wazib-ul-arz or by the general law. It is true that, at the settlement of 1915, Raghunath was given the Parcha Ex. P-l but that was in respect of the disputed land which was described as bhogra. Even thereafter, the position remained unchanged (Ex. P-2). In fact, as provided by Clause 5 of the State Wazib-ul-arz, the bhogra character of the land could not be altered during the currency of the settlement.

We agree with the lower Court, and it is no longer disputed before us, that there is no provision in the Central Provinces States Land Tenure Order, 1949, which governs the devolution