JUDGMENT This appeal is against a judgment of Bhutt J. in Second Appeal No. 598 of 1953, dated 7th January 1954. By his judgment the learned single Judge reversed the decision of the lower appellate Court which had affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The short question in this case is the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951) to the facts of this case. The Appellant claims that the suit was not rendered incompetent by the operation of the said Act, while the Respondents contend that it was so. The suit was brought by the present Appellant, Rani Zamitkuwar, for possession of a site which admittedly is situated in the abadi of mauza Dondi Lohara. According to the Plaintiff, this site was given to one Lalaram, whose sons the Respondents are, along with a house which the Plaintiff had constructed on the site lor residence. This Lalaram, it was alleged, was a servant of the Zamindarin and was allowed to live in that house during his term as such. According to the Plaintiff, Lalaram left the service and he ought then to have handed back the house as well as the site to the Plaintiff. The defence was that the site was purchased by Kalyan, a relative of Lalaram; but we need not give the details of that defense, inasmuch as all the Courts have concurrently held that that story was not true. In the plaint the Plaintiff had claimed only the site and not the house. When the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act was passed during the pendency of this suit, two amendments were effected in the plaint, but the prayer still remained that the Plaintiff should be placed in possession of the site after ordering the Defendants to remove the superstructure. This appears somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the Plaintiff claimed that the house was constructed by her and given to Lalaram only for residence. We, however, do not say anything more about it because the finding is that the house was in fact constructed by the Zamindarin, the Plaintiff. This appears somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the Plaintiff claimed that the house was constructed by her and given to Lalaram only for residence. We, however, do not say anything more about it because the finding is that the house was in fact constructed by the Zamindarin, the Plaintiff. The three Courts below have differed on the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act to the facts of this case and also the Full Bench decision of this Court in Chhote Khan v. Mohammad Obedullakhan 1953 NLJ 254 : I L R 1953 Nag. 702. The short question is whether the Plaintiff can continue to maintain this suit in respect of this abadi site after the Full Bench decision. According to the said Act, all the abadi vested in the State, except those plots which were specifically saved by virtue of Section 5(a) of the Act and according to the terms thereof. In respect of those plots, though the ownership was still in the State Government, the person who was holding the plots was to continue in possession and settle with the State Government with regard to the land revenue. In the present case, the plot alone is demanded, and if it was not a question of the house, it is clear that the ruling in Chhote Khan's Case would have applied without the least argument and there would have been an end of this matter. The question is whether the existence of the house makes any difference. In our opinion, the fact that a house stands on the plot makes no difference to the decision of this case, inasmuch as under the terms of Section 5(a) of the Act, the plot will be regarded as an appurtenance to the house and will go with the house. The person who holds the house will be entitled to retain the site and to settle with the Government about the terms on which it should be held by him. The learned single Judge has adequately pointed out how Section 5(a) of the Act is conclusive of the rights of the parties, and the ownership of the plot as well as the house cannot be but with the Defendants. The learned single Judge has adequately pointed out how Section 5(a) of the Act is conclusive of the rights of the parties, and the ownership of the plot as well as the house cannot be but with the Defendants. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and we think that no error is disclosed in the reasoning of the learned single Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.