1. This is a plaintiff's further appeal against an affirming decree of the lower appeal Court dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is the Bhumidhari or, at any rate an occupancy tenant of certain plots of village Chhaptara, which are more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

2. It is common ground that Mahant Ramkrishnadas, father of the minor plaintiff, was the sole proprietor of village Chhaptara upto the date of vesting as indicated in section 3 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). Claiming title to the disputed plots under two registered lease deeds dated 15 November 1949, which Ramkrishnadas executed in favour of the plaintiff, he applied under section 6 (2) of the Abolition Act for a declaration that the leases would not be void after the date of vesting. Since those leases were made before 16 March 1950, no action was taken on that application. Subsequently, in the year 1955, the Nistar Officer cum Additional Deputy Commissioner included 47.11 acres out of the disputed plots (49.24 acres) in the Nistar Patrak prepared by him and also recorded that the residents of the village had grazing rights over the land. That Nistar Patrak was published in the village on 20 November 1955. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff solved upon the State Government a notice dated 1 October 1956; as required by section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The plaintiff's case is that, in virtue of the two lease deeds dated 15 November 1949, he became an occupancy tenant of the disputed plots, he was placed in possession of those pots and, thereafter, he has been regularly paying refit of those plots to the authorities concerned. According to the plaintiff, those plots did not vest in the State and the Nistar Officer had no jurisdiction to include any part of the land forming those plots in the Nistar Patrak or to grant t the villagers grazing rights over that land.

4. The defence is that the lease deed, were bogus and fraudulent in that they were made in order to avoid the vesting of the disputed plus in the State. The two leases being thus of no effect, all those plots vested in the State and Nistar Officer rightly treated them as so vested for the purpose of preparing Nistar Patrak. It is also pleaded that, since the plaintiff did not appeal against the order of the Nistar Officer and did not also take my action for getting the entries made in the Nistar Patrak corrected, it is no longer open to him to challenge the entries and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit directed against those entries.

5. The two Courts below dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the leases were void because they were made in favour of a minor and imposed upon him an obligation to pay rent.

6. Since the lower Courts had not considered or decided the question whether the lease deeds were unreal or fictitious, the case was remitted to the Court of first instance for determining it. In the absence of any evidence led by the defendant on this point, that Court found upon evidence adduced by the plaintiff that the leases were not unreal. This conclusion, which has not been challenged before me, should be accepted in this appeal.

7. The main question for consideration is whether the two leases dated 15 November 1949 are void became they were made in favour of a minor. Ex. p-1 is patta granting to the plaintiff, represented by his mother as his guardian, perpetual occupancy right without any premium but with an obligation to pay Rs. 10 as annual rent for 22.88 acres of land Ex. P-2 is a like patta for 26.36 acres of land for which the plaintiff was required to pay Rs. 12 as annual rent. For the view that these pattas are void, the lower appeal Court followed a decision of the Board of Revenue Rajendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1958 RN 79. That case is easily distinguishable because there the minor was not represente