The trial companyrt did number find any merit in the claim of the appellant and held that even though the lease deed was registered after 30 3 1950 but it having been executed on 5 12 1949, it would be deemed to have been registered on 5 12 1949 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act did number stand in the way of the respondent acquiring the title in land in dispute.
Since, admittedly, the lease deed was executed on 5 12 1949, the plaintiff after registration of it on 3 4 1950 became owner by operation of law on the date when the deed was executed.
It was claimed that the land in dispute was leased to the plaintiff by the lambardar and the deed executed on 5 12 1949 which was registered on 3 4 1950.
The claim was companytested by the appellant and it was claimed that the deed having been registered on 3 4 1950, it was void under Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 in brief the Act as the land had vested in the State on 31 3 1950.
The findings recorded by the High Court and the trial companyrt have been assailed by Shri Sen, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, and it is claimed that the lease deed having been registered after the material date, it companyld number companyfer any title on the respondent as the right title ininterest of the respondents predecessor already stood vested in the State prior to registration of the lease deed.
In this defendants appeal directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the question that arises for companysideration is if the High Court companymitted any error of law in upholding the order of the appellate companyrt decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent on finding that the defendant appellant had number acquired any rights by adverse possession.
526 located in Khurai Tehsil, District Sagar.
The suit was filed for possession in respect of an area of approximately 0.56 acres of Khasra No.
It was alleged that the appellant was an agent of the respondent who was permitted to set up a brick kiln in the area in dispute in the year 1960 61.
But the suit was dismissed on the finding that the appellant had acquired rights by adverse possession.
The appellant, however, who had a house in the adjoining Khasra No.
The appellate companyrt affirmed the finding on title.
And set aside the finding on adverse possession.
Therefore, the land did number vest in the State.
The High Court did number interfere in second appeal.
In the alternative, the plea of adverse possession was raised.
In appeal the order was set aside and the suit was decreed.
527 trespassed initially on 0.14 acre and made further encroachments on 0.42 acre.
