Under Gwalior Mal Qanoon which was the revenue law applicable to the agricultural lands of the Gwalior region of erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, Khud kasht lands companyld be leased by the proprietor for cultivation.
A lease for a period of eight years was granted to the defendants.
The relevant facts as companycurrently found by all the companyrts and are numberlonger in dispute are as under The plaintiff Virendra Singh was proprietor or Zamindar of Survey No.
Shorn of details, the question involved is whether the suit lands which companytinued in possession of the defendants even after expiry of their term of lease, can be claimed by the plaintiff landlord.
Those proceedings terminated as inconclusive because the Legal Representatives of one of the tenants were number brought on record.
as his Khudkasht lands of which he can retain possession as an ex proprietor under sub section 2 of section 4 of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 for short the Act.
Proprietary rights were abolished by the Act which came into force on 25.6.1951 and with effect from the numberified date 02.10.1951, all proprietary rights of proprietors in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Act stood vested in the State.
On expiry of the period of lease i.e. in July 1951, the proprietor promptly instituted eviction proceedings in the Revenue Court under the Gwalior Mal Qanoon, for obtaining possession of the land.
The suit lands in that Survey were recorded up to Samvat 1999 companyresponding to the year 1942 as Zamindars Khud kasht lands as defined in section 2 c of the Act.
216 of village Kanawar, District Bhind.
The original defendants are also dead and are number represented by their Legal Representatives.
The suit was dismissed throughout and decree has been companyfirmed in the second appeal by the High Court.
The plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant and possession of the suit lands.
The proceedings for eviction instituted prior to the companying into force of the Act did number fructify in favour of proprietor.
Dharmadhikari J. This appeal has been preferred by the Legal Representatives of the original plaintiff.
