JUDGMENT K.L. Pandey, J 1. This is an appeal by the Defendants against whom a decree for possession of 57.58 acres of land was passed in favour of the Plaintiffs in a suit filed by them for (i) declaration that 129.53 acres of land was then joint family property in which they had a half share and (ii) that the aforesaid land was liable to be partitioned and for joint possession of certain lands transferred by the Defendant 1 to the Defendant 4. 2. The relationship between the parties is not disputed and the admitted facts so far as they are relevant are as under. The common ancestor of the parties Sagram, was the protected Thekedar of village Belsari, in Pandaria Zamindari Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur. He died sometime in the year 1900 leaving behind four sons; Nandram, Mukutram, Sukhram and Netram. The eldest son was recognised as the protected Thekedar after Sagram's death. Mukutram died in the year 1910 without any issue or widow and Sukhram died in the yeas 1911 leaving a son Jiwrakhan, whose sons are Defendants 1 and 2. Netram died in the year 1933 leaving behind three sons; Ramadhin, Dukhiram (Plaintiff No. 3) and Hariprasad (Plaintiff No. 4). However Ramadhin died in the year 1949 leaving behind his two sons Onkarprasad (Plaintiff No. 1) and Premprasad (Plaintiff No. 2) Jiwrakhan had died in the year 1946. On the death of Nandram without any issue; the protected Thekedari naturally devolved on Jiwrakhan, who was then eldest member in the next senior branch. He held 132.82 acres of sir land and 2.49 acres of khudkasht land as his homefarm. It appears that in or about 1922-23 there was a family settlement between Jiwrakhan on the one hand and Netram on the other whereunder 57.58 acres of sir land was allowed to be cultivated by Netram separately. Netram continued to cultivate the sais land till his death in the year 1933. Thereafter his three sons came in possession of the said land and cultivated it till 1953 After Jiwrakhan's death his eldest son Tekram (Defendant No. 1) became the protected Thekedar of the village. Netram continued to cultivate the sais land till his death in the year 1933. Thereafter his three sons came in possession of the said land and cultivated it till 1953 After Jiwrakhan's death his eldest son Tekram (Defendant No. 1) became the protected Thekedar of the village. Inconsequence of abolition of the proprietary rights under the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act 1950 (No. I of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as Act I of 1951) the sir and khudkashi lands comprised in the said village became the occupancy lands. Subsequently the Defendant 1 not only denied the right of the Plaintiff to continue 10 hold 57.58 acres of land in their possession but also threatened to dispossess them from the land and actually sold a part of the land to the Defendant 4. On the basis of these facts the Plaintiff's intiated the action claiming the relief's mentioned in the opening paragraph. 3. The Defendants contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. It was their case that the protected Thekedari was not acquired by Sagram but was acquired by his son Nandram at a time when his three other brothers had already separated from him. It was, therefore, pleaded that these three brothers never had any right in the Thekedari which exclusively belonged to Nandram. So also when Nandram died and Jiwrakhan was recognised as the protected Thekedar his uncle Netram, the ancestor of the Plaintiffs, had no right at all in the home-farm of the said village which exclusively belonged to Jiwrakhan. It was, however, alleged that Jiwrakhan, in order to provide for his uncle and as an act of grace, allowed Netram to cultivate 57.58 acres of land. Netram's sons were also similarly allowed to cultivate the said land without conferring on them any rights therein. It was pleaded that the arrangement made by Jiwrakhan came to an end on his death and did not bind his sons and that, in any case, whatever right the Plaintiffs may have acquired over the land in their possession came to an end with the abolition of the proprietary rights under Act 1 of 1951. The Defendants denied that the land in suit was, at any time, joint family property of the parties or that the Plaintiffs had any share therein to entitle them to claim a partition. The Defendants denied that the land in suit was, at any time, joint family property of the parties or that the Plaintiffs had any share therein to entitle them to claim a partition. They further pleaded that since the land was settled with the outgoing proprietor (Defendant No. 1) civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs' claim. 4. The learned Judge of the lower Court after trial found as under: (a) The protected Thekedari was acquired by Sagram and after his death his son Nandram and his three brothers bad been all along living as members of a Hindu joint family; (b) Jiwrakhan and Netram were joint in all respects. In a family arrangement Netram was given 57.58 acres of sir land for his separate cultivation in the manner pleaded by the Plaintiffs; (c) After the abolition of the proprietary rights the land was settled with Defendant No. 1 alone. Even so, he was not entitled to hold it exclusively for himself because the settlement enured for the benefit of the Plaintiffs as well; (d) The civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs' claim; and (e) The Defendant No. 1 had no right to transfer any part of the aforesaid land to the Defendants 3 and 4. On these findings the lower Court decreed the Plaintiffs' claim as already indicated. 5. The first point for our consideration is whether the protected Thekedari was acquired by Sagram or by Nandram. In this connection we have been referred to the Assistant Settlement Officer's proposals for the protection of lessees in the Pandana Zamindari made in 1908, which were printed and published. In the said proposals the village Belsari was shown to be in possession of the family to which the parties belonged since the year 1847 or, at any rate, since the year 1870 when Sagram was alive. That conclusively established that it was Sagram, and not Nandram, who had acquired the protected Thekedari. That negatives the story that the Thekedari was acquired by Nandram. Then the question arises whether Nandram and his three brothers were joint or separate. In view of the presumption under the Hindu Law of continued jointness it was for the Defendants to establish separation. This they have failed to do. Further, the following facts which appear from the record conclusively establish the true position. Then the question arises whether Nandram and his three brothers were joint or separate. In view of the presumption under the Hindu Law of continued jointness it was for the Defendants to establish separation. This they have failed to do. Further, the following facts which appear from the record conclusively establish the true position. In the year 1944, Jiwrakhan had filed a suit against Ramadhin in which he filed better particulars (Ex. P-16) on the orders of the Court. In those particulars he unequivocally admitted that the Defendants were in possession of the lands in their capacity as members of the family under a family arrangement which had been in force for more than 30 years. That suit was filed to claim proportionate contribution from the Defendants towards the rental of the sir land belonging to the joint family in their possession. This admission on the part of Jiwrakhan, in our opinion, strongly supports the Plaintiffs and negatives the defence. There is also other evidence on record to support the Plaintiffs. Ex. P-1 is a notice dated 5-2-1941 served by Jiwrakhan on Ramdhin, father of Plaintiffs 1 and 2, when he was alive demanding from him rent amounting to Rs 265-1-0 for three years at the rate of Rs. 88-11-0 per year which was the proportionate rent of the sir land in possession of Ramadhin and his two younger brothers (Plaintiffs 3 and 4). Then, again Ex. P-15 is a copy of the plaint in the civil suit filed by Jiwrakhan against Ramadhin and his brothers for proportional rent for the years 1941 to 1944. Similarly Exs. P-3 to P-10, which arc for the period between 1922 to 1929, are the receipts granted by Jiwrakhan in favour of Netram for the amounts recovered from him as contribution to wards losses suffered in the protected Thekedari. All this evidence, leads only to this conclusion that the family continued to remain joint till the dispute in this suit arose. The learned Judge of the lower Court has examined the evidence bearing on this point and we affirm his finding that the family continued to be joint all along even though the protected Thekedari was being conferred every time on the eldest member of the senior-most surviving branch whenever occasion arose. The learned Judge of the lower Court has examined the evidence bearing on this point and we affirm his finding that the family continued to be joint all along even though the protected Thekedari was being conferred every time on the eldest member of the senior-most surviving branch whenever occasion arose. We also accepted his finding that it was under a family arrangement that Netram was given the sir land for separate cultivation and he had held it in his own rights as a co-sharer. 6. The next question that we have to decide is whether the settlement of the land with Defendant No. 1 alone under the provisions of Act I of 1951 ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Court to grant relief to the Plaintiffs. 7. Since we have found that the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2 were co-sharers and members of a Hindu joint family the entire sir and khudkasht land would necessarily be their joint family property. Even though the protected Thekedari was recognised in favour of one of the co-sharers and that that Thekedari was impartible, it did not mean that the co-sharers of the protected Thekedar had no interest whatsoever in the sir and khudkasht lands appurtinent to that Thekedari. This position was well recognised under the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 109 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 which provided as follows: Nothing herein contained shall prevent a protected thekedar, or any member or members of his family who would be entitled to share in the theka or to be maintained out of its income, from making any arrangement, binding on themselves only, for the joint or divided management and enjoyment of the village or part thereof. It is now well settled that such an arrangement, if made, would not only be binding on the parties to that arrangement but would also be binding on their successors who could enforce their rights under the arragement against any claim set up in derogation of the arrangement. This legal position finds support from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 1949 dated 30 November 1954. We must, in view of the legal position slated above, hold that the family arrangement enured for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and entitled them to claim(sic) the land allotted to them under that arrangement 8. We must, in view of the legal position slated above, hold that the family arrangement enured for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and entitled them to claim(sic) the land allotted to them under that arrangement 8. It was accepted before us that under Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of Act I of 1951 the rights of an occupancy tenant were reserved in the entire home-farm land in the village, including 57-58 acres of land, held by the Plaintiffs in favour of the Defendant No. 1. It is necessary to state that all these lands had vested in the State. The provisions of Sections 39 and 40 conferred a discretion to recognise certain rights in favour of certain persons who fulfilled the conditions therein provided. In this case, the Defendant No. 1 was recognised as the tenant of the State in respect of the entire home-farm land of the village. The position here was that although the Defendant No. 1, who was the protected Thekedar, was recognised as the proprietor for purposes of Section 39 of Act I of 1951, the rights of other members of the family in the theka continued, as before, though previously they could not obtain partition of the lands pertaining to the theka or claim to be in possession of any portion thereof if there were no arrangement amongst them. That being so, the Defendant I, in securing reservation of the rights of an occupancy tenant in the home-farm land as the proprietor, must be deemed to have acted for and on behalf of all members of the family who were entitled to claim the theka as their joint family property. It follows that, in this view, the Defendant 1 is disentitled to claim on the basis of the order passed under Section 39 ibid that he alone is the occupancy tenant of the entire home-farm land. 9. The result is the appeal which has no force, fails and is dismissed. The Appellants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Respondents throughout Counsel's fee here according to schedule. Appeal dismissed.