JUDGMENT S.B. SEN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs whose suit for possession of certain lands in mouza Linjir, district Raigarh, and for recovery of Rs. 3000/- on account of the price of the dhan crop forcibly taken away by the defendants-respondents, has been dismissed. 2. The following are the allegations of the plaintiffs: The lands in suit were originally Bnogra, lands. After the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1/51). came into force, they were declared as raiyati lands. Since the year 1923, the respondent No. 9, Mst. Apuchha was holding the lands in her exclusive right as Bhogra lands. On 8-2-1952, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Raigarh settled these lands in raiyati rights in her favour. On 19.5.1953, Mst. Apuchha, respondent No. 9, sold these lands to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- and they were put in their possession also. One Danardhan, who was the father of the defendants nos. 1 to 5, was taking these lands on adhiya from respondent no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, every year. After purchasing the lands, the plaintiffs sowed dhan. When the dhan crop was ready, the defendants took possession of the lands in suit and wrongfully took away the dhan crop sowed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 3000/- on account of the dhan crop taken away wrongfully by the defendants nos. 1 to 8. 3. Defendant-respondant no.9, Mst. Apuchha, admitted all the allegations in the plaint, excepting the fact about the wrongful taking possession by the defendants nos. 1 to 8 and also her liability to pay any damages on account of the dhan being taken away wrongfully by defendants nos. 1 to 8. 4. Excepting the fact that the lands were originally Bhogra lands and have become raiyati after the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act cannot into force, the defendants 1 to 8 denied each and every allegation mentioned in para 2 above. They say that defendant no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, never held the lands in suit in her exclusive right. According to them, they themselves sowed the dhan and, therefore removed the same as their own. The value of the crops removed, according to the defendants nos. 1 to 8, was Rs. 150/-. The defendants nos. They say that defendant no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, never held the lands in suit in her exclusive right. According to them, they themselves sowed the dhan and, therefore removed the same as their own. The value of the crops removed, according to the defendants nos. 1 to 8, was Rs. 150/-. The defendants nos. 1 to 8 further say that Danardan was the gaontia of the village Linjir as the eldest son of Narayan Kolta. The other sons of Narayan Kolta were Balmukund, Ghannoo and Sankirtan. The lands in suit were given to Sankirtan; who was the husband of Mst. Apuchha, for maintenance under the terms of the Wajib-ul-arz. Sankirtan, according to the defendants nos. 1 to 8, died in 1930 in a state of jointness with his brother Ghannoo, who died in the year 1936. After the death of Ghannoo, Danardan entered into possession of the lands. Danardan continued in possession till his death after which defendants nos. 1 to 8 entered into possession and cultivated the lands all along. According, to defendants nos. 1 to 8, therefore, they were in adverse possession of the lands for more than 12 years before the suit was filed and the right of defendant no 9, Mst. Apuchha, if there was any, was extinguished. Defendants nos. 1 to 8 further challenged the parta granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, declaring defendant no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, as the holder of raiyati rights in these lands, as invalid and void. According to them under Section 54 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, the lands were never under the personal cultivdtion of Mst. Apuchha and therefore, no raiyati rights could be given to her. 5. The trial Court held that the lands in suit were given to Sankirtan in lieu of his share in the village profits by Danardhan. Sankirtan did not die in a state of jointness with Ghannoo. After the death of Sankirtan, the trial Court held that the defendant no. 9, Mst, Apuchha held the suit property as the widow and in a limited right. The trial Court also held that Danardan was not cultivating the lands on adhiya from defendant no. 9, but took wrongful possession of the lands in the year 1944-45 from her, who was in possession then and continued in possession till his death in 1950-51. 9, Mst, Apuchha held the suit property as the widow and in a limited right. The trial Court also held that Danardan was not cultivating the lands on adhiya from defendant no. 9, but took wrongful possession of the lands in the year 1944-45 from her, who was in possession then and continued in possession till his death in 1950-51. After the death of Danardan, the trial Court found that defendants nos. 1 to 8 were in possession of the lands in suit. As the suit was filed before the expiry of 12 years, the trial Court found that defendants nos. 1 to 8 could not claim any title on account of adverse possession. 6. The trial Court also found that after the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act all the Bhogra lands, including the lands in suit in village Linjir, vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, according to the trial Court, wrongly settled the lands with defendant no. 9, Mst. Apuchha, in raiyati rights as she was not in personal cultivation of these Bhogra lands. The trial Court, therefore, found that the patia that was granted to defendant no 9, Mst. Apuchha, was void and no right was conferred on Mst. Apuchha. It held that the lands still belong to the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. The trial Court further held that there was no doubt a registered sale of the property in suit but as the property never belonged to Mst. Apuchha, defendant no. 9, on the date of the sale, the deed did not confer any right, nor were the plaintiffs put in possession in pursuance to the sale. It also held consistently with this finding that the plaintiffs never sowed the dhan crop in the lands and were never in possession of the same. It however, gave a finding that the dhan that was removed would be worth Rs. 500/-. The plaintiffs' suit was thus dismissed. 8. It will thus appear that the crucial finding that resulted in the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs is that the patta that was granted by the [Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Raigarh, was void. The reasoning of the trial Court is that the lands were not under the personal cultivation of Mst. Apuchha, defendant no. 9. 8. It will thus appear that the crucial finding that resulted in the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs is that the patta that was granted by the [Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Raigarh, was void. The reasoning of the trial Court is that the lands were not under the personal cultivation of Mst. Apuchha, defendant no. 9. According to it, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, had no jurisdiction to act under Section 54 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, to settle these lands with Mst. Apuchha. The view that lands were not under the personal cultivation of Mst. Apuchha is based on the finding that in the year 1944-45 Danardhan had wrongfully dispossessed her. 9. We cannot agree with this view of the trial Court. It is a finding of the trial Court that Mst. Apuchha was wrongfully dispossessed and therefore, the possession of Danardhan or of defandants nos. 1 to 8. did not ripen into a title by adverse possession. The defendants nos. 1 to 8 were mere trespassers and if the right of a person who is entitled to be in lawful possession is extinguished by a trespasser, who has not completed 12 years possession, it will be putting premium on wrongful acts. "Personal cultivation" appearing in Section 54 of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, means ones own cultivation; But if one is prohibited from doing his own cultivation by a wrong doer, the authorities ought to ignore the trespasser and ascribe the cultivation by the wrongdoer to the true owner by holding it to be his (true owner's) cultivation. Therefore, we hold that Mst. Apuchha ought to be considered as in personal cvltivation of the lands in raiyati rights under Section 54, Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. 10. The next question to be decided is whether Mst. Apuchha was a proprietor. "Proprietor" has been defined in the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. The definition includes a gaontia or a thekadar of a village in respect of which by or under the provisions contained in the Wajib-ul-arz. applicable to such village, the gaontia or the thekadar, as the case may be, has a right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such village. The Bhogra lands were given to Sankirtan because he was a proprietor and after that it came by inheritance to Mst. Apuchha. applicable to such village, the gaontia or the thekadar, as the case may be, has a right to recover rent or revenue from persons holding land in such village. The Bhogra lands were given to Sankirtan because he was a proprietor and after that it came by inheritance to Mst. Apuchha. According to rule 9 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz, a gaontia may by private agreement allot Bhogra land to members of the family who are entitled to a share of the profits of the village and such agreement will be recognised by Civil Courts. Succession to such Bhogra holding will be governed by the rules relating to the succession of ryots" It is thus clear that once the Bhogra land is allotted to any cosharer by any private agreement, he holds it permanently and succession to such lands is governed by the rules relating to the succession of ryots. There is only one proviso in rule 9, which says that "if, however, the gaontia surrenders or is ejected from his village or if the theka of the village lapses on failure of heirs entitled to succeed, all persons holding Bhogra land shall be ejected from that land". This restriction is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, there is no doubt that Mst. Apachha owned the lands in suit as proprietor on the date when they vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh. We have thus no reason to hold that the lands in suit were not under the personal cultivation of the proprietor as contemplated under Section 54 of the Act. 11. As will appear from Exs. P-1 and P-2 enquiries were made in respect of all the properties in mouza Linjir and the different members of the family were given different properties. The family of Danardhan, Balmukand, Ghannoo and Sankirtan were given their shares according to their possession and 'Khata No. 2 was given to Mst. Apuchha. This Khata No. 2 is the property in dispute. An appeal would He from an order of the Land Reforms Officer under Section 84 of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. It was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, to settle the lands with respondent No. 9, Mst. Apuchha, as, even according to the trial Court, Mst. Apuchha was in possession till she was wrongfully dispossessed. It was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, to settle the lands with respondent No. 9, Mst. Apuchha, as, even according to the trial Court, Mst. Apuchha was in possession till she was wrongfully dispossessed. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, had jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and come to the finding in respect of the personal cultivation of a proprietor. Whether he was right or wrong is not to be determined by us, once it is shown that he had jurisdiction over the matter. The trial Court has held that the property is still the property of the State. If the property was of the State and if the State has given the patta to defendant No. 9, Mst. Apuchha, we do not understand how defendants Nos. 1 to 8 could challenge that patta. It is not their case that they should have been granted the patta In fact, the trial Court has found that defendant Nos. 1 to 8 had taken wrongful possession and, therefore, the State would not grant them a patta. We, therefore, hold that the patta that was granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, was not void or invalid. 12. Next is the question about the possession that was being delivered. On this point, the plaintiffs have examined Sakharam (P.W. 1), and Kalindar (P.W. 5) Though Sakharam (P. W. 1) is one of the plaintiffs, there is no evidence in rebuttal, nor has the trial Court given any reason why Kalindar (P.W. 5) should not be believed. Kalinder (P.W. 5) has not been shown to be interested in the plaintiffs in any way. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, we hold that possession was delivered to the plaintiffs. 13. We shall now consider the evidence regarding the sowing of dhan. The trial Court has disbelieved Sakharam (P.W. 1) and Bhagatram (P. W. 4) because Sakharam is one of the plaintiffs and Bhagatram is their servant. Another reason for disbelieving the witnesses is that there was a criminal case on account of possession of that property some time before the date on which the plaintiffs are alleged to have sowed the dhan. In our opinion, there was no adequate reason to disbelieve them. At any rate, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we hold that the dhan was sowed by the plaintiffs. 14. In our opinion, there was no adequate reason to disbelieve them. At any rate, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we hold that the dhan was sowed by the plaintiffs. 14. The defendants have admitted that had taken away the dhan crop, but they say that they had taken it away as they thought that they were entitled to it. If the dhan was sowed by the plaintiffs in their own land, the defendants must be held to have wrongfully taken it away. The crop that was taken away by the defendants Nos 1 to 8 was worth Rs. 500. The appellants have not challenged this finding. We, therefore, hold that Rs. 500 was the price of the crop wrongfully taken away by the defendants Nos. 1 to 8. 15. The result is that the appeal is allowed with costs. The plaintiffs' suit is decreed. The claim for damages is, however, restricted to Rs. 500. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Counsel's fee according to scale, if certified. Appeal allowed