Even after giving such a finding the High Court is of the view, that on the vesting of the land rights of the proprietor in respect of the suit land ceased.
On this basis the lower appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs appellants.
The executing companyrt however overruled the objections raised by the appellants and in execution of the aforesaid decree delivered possession of the suit lands to Madhorao on 15.7.1949.
On appeal filed by the appellants the Addl.
It is on that basis the High Court took the view the suit was filed having numberright to possess the suit lands and therefore, numberrelief companyld be granted.
Their case is that one Madhorao had effected a mortgage of the suit lands in their favour and he brought a suit for redemption which was decreed and on his filing execution petition the same was resisted by the appellants on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
It was held after 2.10.1951 the right to possession of suit land from the said Kishan Lal even assuming him to be a trespasser companyld number be claimed by the appellants as their rights were lost having vested in the State.
However the trial companyrt decreed the appellants suit.
Section 41 reads as under Tenant to be deemed to be a Governments tenant from the date of vesting and Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Act to apply to the vested land.
Thereafter, the appellants carried the matter unsuccessfully in second appeal.
So the present suit has been filed by the appellants against Kishan Lal for recovery of possession of the suit lands.
On appeal the lower appellate companyrt held that on 2.10.1951 when the propriety rights in the suit lands vested in the State under the Act the appellants had lost all interest in the same and that the said Kishan Lal had become a pucca tenant of the suit lands by virtue of the provisions of Section 38 of the Act and thus the appellant was number entitled to any relief.
That application was rejected on an objection being raised by one Kishan Lal stating that he was in possession of the lands in question, who was number a party to earlier proceedings.
Judge was upheld.
When the matter was carried further by Madhorao the order passed by Addl.
The appellants filed an application for restitution on 12.5.1953.
The suit land was situated in a village which was settled under the Zamindari System in the erstwhile State of Gwalior when Madhorao was Malguzar of the said village and appellants were mortgagees who companyld be described in the category of Malguzars as defined by Section 2 12 of Qanoon Mal, Gwalior and, therefore, companyld be treated to be proprietors as de fined by Section 2 a of the Act.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Saghir Ahmad, J. The plaintiffs are in appeal before us.
They brought a suit for possession in respect of certain parcels of agricultural land and for recovery of mesne profits.
