Wrongful dispossession of a person entitled to be in lawful possession by a trespasser does not ripen into a title by adverse possession, and the cultivation by the trespasser will be ascribed to the true owner as his own cultivation.

S.B. SEN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs whose suit for possession of certain lands in mouza Linjir, district Raigarh, and for recovery of Rs. 3000/- on account of the price of the dhan crop forcibly taken away by the defendants-respondents, has been dismissed.

2. The following are the allegations of the plaintiffs: The lands in suit were originally Bnogra, lands. After the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1/51). came into force, they were declared as raiyati lands. Since the year 1923, the respondent No. 9, Mst. Apuchha was holding the lands in her exclusive right as Bhogra lands. On 8-2-1952, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Raigarh settled these lands in raiyati rights in her favour. On 19.5.1953, Mst. Apuchha, respondent No. 9, sold these lands to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- and they were put in their possession also. One Danardhan, who was the father of the defendants nos. 1 to 5, was taking these lands on adhiya from respondent no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, every year. After purchasing the lands, the plaintiffs sowed dhan. When the dhan crop was ready, the defendants took possession of the lands in suit and wrongfully took away the dhan crop sowed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 3000/- on account of the dhan crop taken away wrongfully by the defendants nos. 1 to 8.

3. Defendant-respondant no.9, Mst. Apuchha, admitted all the allegations in the plaint, excepting the fact about the wrongful taking possession by the defendants nos. 1 to 8 and also her liability to pay any damages on account of the dhan being taken away wrongfully by defendants nos. 1 to 8.

4. Excepting the fact that the lands were originally Bhogra lands and have become raiyati after the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act cannot into force, the defendants 1 to 8 denied each and every allegation mentioned in para 2 above. They say that defendant no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, never held the lands in suit in her exclusive right. According to them, they themselves sowed the dhan and, therefore removed the same as their own. The value of the crops removed, according to the defendants nos. 1 to 8, was Rs. 150/-. The defendants nos. 1 to 8 further say that Danardan was the gaontia of the village Linjir as the eldest son of Narayan Kolta. The other sons of Narayan Kolta were Balmukund, Ghannoo and Sankirtan. The lands in suit were given to Sankirtan; who was the husband of Mst. Apuchha, for maintenance under the terms of the Wajib-ul-arz. Sankirtan, according to the defendants nos. 1 to 8, died in 1930 in a state of jointness with his brother Ghannoo, who died in the year 1936. After the death of Ghannoo, Danardan entered into possession of the lands. Danardan continued in possession till his death after which defendants nos. 1 to 8 entered into possession and cultivated the lands all along. According, to defendants nos. 1 to 8, therefore, they were in adverse possession of the lands for more than 12 years before the suit was filed and the right of defendant no 9, Mst. Apuchha, if there was any, was extinguished. Defendants nos. 1 to 8 further challenged the parta granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, declaring defendant no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, as the holder of raiyati rights in these lands, as invalid and void. According to them under Section 54 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, the lands were never under the personal cultivdtion of Mst. Apuchha and therefore, no raiyati rights could be given to her.

5. The trial Court held that the lands in suit were given to Sankirtan in lieu of his share in the village profits by Danardhan. Sankirtan did not die in a state of jointness with Ghannoo. After the death of Sankirtan, the trial Court held that the defendant no. 9, Mst, Apuchha held the suit property as the widow and in a limited right. The trial Court also held that Danardan was not