T. N. Singh, J

l. This is defendant's appeal. The suit was dismissed by the Court below, but the lower appellate Court having decreed the same, the defendant has assailed the decision rendered in appeal.

2. Although long arguments are made in this matter, the law has to be appreciated properly which exercise was not undertaken erroneously by the Court below. Because I have taken the view that on a misappreciation of the correct legal position, the Court below erroneously reversed the decree passed by the trial Court, I have no hesitation to say that the long arguments of counsel has a short answer in law. Appellant's counsel Shri K. N. Gupta has made a short submission to the effect that the lower appellate Court, even after holding that the defendant, on plaintiff's own admission, was in possession of the suit land since 1963 and also bolding that the defendant had paid rent for the suit land for one year, failed to bold that the plaintiff lost his right, title and interest in the suit land in virtue of the provisions contained in sections 168 (1), 169 (1), 250 (1-A), 190 (2-A) and 190 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, for short, the 'Code'.

3. Respondent's counse