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 col