Dr. T N. Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant whose suit was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed by the appellate Court.

2. An erst-while Zamindar, the plaintiff is, who claims the suit land to be his "Khudkasht" land on the basis of Khasra entries for Samvat 2007 and title therein on the ground that the land did not vest in the State on abolition of Zaminadari in virtue of section 4 (2) of M. B. Zaminadari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008, for short, Samvat 2008 Act. At this stage, the said provision may be quoted:

"4. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khud kasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting."

3. The primary point for determination in this appeal is interpretation of relevant entries in khasra. Ex P-2 but restriction of the controversy undoubtedly carries disparate legal ramifications. The Khasra is in the printed form, prescribed by law. It is true that in column No.3 there is entry of ownership of the total land 14 biswas and 5 biswas and in column No.5 the entry is to the effect that it was Khud Kasht land of Khumansingh and others. In columns No. 10, 11 and 12 entries are to be made as respects Kharif crop while in columns No 13, 14 and 15 they relate to Rabi crop. However, the controversy centers around column Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24. It has to be carefully noted in this connection that all the four columns are sub-divisions, under the main caption "Gair Majrua Bhumi Ka Vivran". Columns 21 and 22 are clubbed together under the sub-head "Shamil Jot Khaton Ki" while columns No. 23 and 24 are of "Alawa Jot (Gair, Khaton Ki)". In Ex. P-2, in column No. 21 the entry is 'Kans' and in the corresponding column No. 22 the area shown in 6 big has 10 biswas. However, the position is made further clear in the Khasra for Samvat 2008 where the entries in columns No. 22 and 23 comprise of two items of Padali Kans' 6 bighas 10 biswas and ‘Padati Kadim’ 4 bighas 4 biswas, but this Khasra (Ex. p-3) is for Survey Nos. 439, 440 and 441 while Ex. P-2 is for Survey No. 439 only.

4. Appellant's counsel, Shri Arun Mishra, bas relied on section 55 (ii) of the M. B. L. R. T. Act, Samvat 2007, for short, Samvat 2007 Act. Counsel has also relied on section 6 of Samvat 2008 Act. The provisions are extracted:

"55. Duties of a tenant-A tenant shall use his holding only for agricultural purposes, namely:-

(i) The growth ................ or

(ii) the growth of grass or food for cattle”

xxx xxx xxx

"6. Suba to take possession of property vesting in the State.- On the date of vesting, the Suba shall take charge of all lands other than occupied lands and home-steeds and of all interests vesting in the State under section 3."

5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel on the decision in Bheron Singh v Govt. of M. P. 1983 RN 243 and with his usual ingenuity by Shri Mishra has also tried here to draw substance from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramanlal v. State of Gujrat 2. AIR 1969 SC 168 State Counsel, Shri Sinha, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Khuman Singh 1971 RN 351=1971 JLJ 577 and on section 2 (d) of M. B. Kans Eradication Act, Samvat 2005, for short, Samvat 2005 Act.

6. The short contention of Shri Arun Mishra is that the holding in the Bench decision in Khumansingh (supra) does not non-suit the plaintiff because in that case their Lordships were not called upon to consider the import and purport of section 55 (ii) of Samvat 2007 Act. It is true that in Khumansingh's case (supra), the Court interpreted the expression "Khud-kasht" used in Samvat 2008 Act with the help of the legislative definition of the expression in section 2 (c) of the Act. It was held that the expression only means that the part of the land which was under personal cultivation of the Zamindar and that the entire land entered in a Khasra is not to be treated as "Khudkasht" and under actual cultivat