Hidayatullah, J—The question raised in these cases is whether as a result of the passing of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Act I of 1951), the Plaintiffs (who are mostly Respondents) can still claim to continue the lis'. In almost all these cases the landlords have succeeded in the Courts below. No third party procedure was followed in these appeals and revisions. The Appellants did not seek to Join the State Government; nor did the State Government come forward by itself. At an earlier hearing I suggestion. that course but was overruled. We have, however, heard the Advocate-General but without joining the State Government.

2. The result as that the original Plaintiffs are on the record opposed to the Appellants or applicants, but it is claimed against them that they have no locus standi to continue the us(sic). The Act in question is not retrospective either expressly necessary intendment. Indeed, the intendment is all the other way even if an Act expressly operating from a future date can be said to be retrospective.

The Act professedly does not touch rights in existence prior to the appointed day and nothing