K.N. Shukla, J.-

l. This is a defendant's second appeal.

2. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter addressed as 'plaintiff') brought a suit against the present appellant and 7 others for declaration of title and recovery of possession of Survey Nos. 83, 552, 524, 549/1, 549/2, 550, 551, 890, 1017 and 1029 total area 19 bighas and 8 biswas, situated at village Lahachura, Tahsil Gohad, Distt. Bhind.

3. Appellant (defendant No.1) was an erstwhile Jagirdar of Village Lahachura.

4. Plaintiff's case was that one Nadar Khan was a Pattedar tenant of the suit lands on 14-8-49. The said Nadar Khan wrote a Patta in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession to him. As a result of this transaction plaintiff entered into possession of the suit lands as a sub-tenant. After coming into force of the Abolition of Jagir's Act (Act No. 28 of 1951), plaintiff acquired Pacca tenancy rights under S.21 thereof. Thereafter he became an occupancy tenant and eventually the bhumiswami under the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code with effect from 1-10-1959. Plaintiff had instituted proceedings under section 92 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act as he had been wrongly disposessed by defendant No. 1. By an interim order, Court of Tahsildar restored possession to the plaintiff but subsequently, his application was dismissed and by order of the Revenue Court, possession was obtained by defendant No.1 on 30-7-60. It was further alleged that defendant No.1 wrongfully gave possession of the suit land to defendants 2 to 8. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per annum.

5. Written-statement was filed by defendants No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 jointly. Defendant No.7 and 8 remained absent and suit proceeded ex-parte against them. Defendants denied that Nadar Khan was ever a tenant of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit lands. It was denied that plaintiff acquired the suit land as a sub-tenant on a Patta by Nadar Khan. It was also denied that plaintiff acquired the rights of Pucca tenant after abolition of Jagirdari. His claim as Bhumiswami under the M.P. Land Revenue Code was also denied. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 as Jagirdar, was in actual possession of the suit land before coming into force of the Abolition of Jagirs Act and became a pacca tenant thereafter. Objection about Civil Court's jurisdiction was also taken, but learned counsel for the appellant conceded that this objection would not be pressed by him.

6. Later, by an amendment, defendants raised a plea that even if it was proved that Nadar Khan had executed a patta in favour of plaintiff, in terms of the patta issued to Nadar Khan, the tenancy in his favour was liable to be cancelled and the lands were liable to be resumed by defendant No.1. For this reason also, plaintiff could not acquire any title in themselves.

7. Trial Court held that defendant No.1 (appellant) had given the land to Nadar Khan on a patta and Nadar Khan had sublet the suit lands to the plaintiff on 14-8-49 for a consideration of Rs. 550/-. Accordingly, plaintiff had acquired pucca tenancy rights and eventually bhumiswami rights over the suit lands. In the light of this finding claim for possession was decreed. The trial Court further granted mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per annum for the three years preceding the date of the suit and gave direction that future mesne profits will be determined and paid under Order 20 rule 12, C.P.C.

8. Appellant-defendant No. 1 appeal against the judgment and decree. Other defendants did not appeal and they were added as co-respondents. Learned District Judge, Bhind dismissed the appeal holding that Nadar Khan was the Pattedar tenant of the Jagirdar i.e. the appellant. He had written a patta in favour of the plaintiff creating a sub-lease in his favour. Plaintiff continued as a sub-tenant till the coming into force of the Abolition of Jagirs Act and virtue of section 21 of the said