ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member The applicant applied in the year 1944 for the mutation of his name in a Zamindari share in Khewat No. 2 of village Aron, Tappa Ater. The mutation was sanctioned in his favour as per Tahsildar's order dated 11-6-1952. Thereafter the applicants applied on 5-7-1952 for the execution of the mutation decree. This was rejected by all the Courts below on the ground that since the Zamindari had, in the meantime, been abolished on 1-10-1951, the said decree became infructuous and was inexecutable. The learned Additional Commissioner in second appeal also held the same view. Hence this revision. Column 10 of the execution application is meant to show the way in which a decree is sought to be executed. In this column the applicant has mentioned that he wanted his name to be entered in the Khewat on 2.2 bighas of Malguzari as also his possession of the same. On the back of this application he has repeated this prayer with the addition of the fact that the non-applicant was holding the aforesaid land in his illegal possession. The contention of the applicant is that after the decree had been passed in his favour he was entitled, under section 43 of the Kanoon Mal, to get the possession of the above land measuring 2.2 Bighas. The opposite view is that section 43 will not apply as the applicant has neither pleaded nor proved that the deceased in whose place the applicant's name was mutated was, before his death, in actual physical possession of the disputed land. Section 43 is conditioned on the existence of deceased's possession on the land under mutation. Non-applicant's contention is that what was sought to be executed was the recording of applicant's name as a part proprietor of Khewat No. 2 and since the Zamindari had been abolished much before the date of the execution application, the relief sought cannot legally be granted. After hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, I am of opinion that the present application has no force. It is patent that after the proprietary rights were taken away by the M.B. Abolition of Zamindari Act, the applicant could not be installed in the Khewat as a proprietor. After hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, I am of opinion that the present application has no force. It is patent that after the proprietary rights were taken away by the M.B. Abolition of Zamindari Act, the applicant could not be installed in the Khewat as a proprietor. In regard to the actual possession of 2.2 Bighas of land, it has not been the case of the applicant that the suit land was the 'Khudkasht' of the deceased. If the plea of Khudkasht had been taken and proved, the disputed land might have been saved to the applicant under section 5 of the M.B. Abolition of Zamindari Act. Nor as the learned counsel for the non-applicant pointed out, it is the case of the applicant that the deceased was in physical possession of the land before his death. Under these circumstances the applicant cannot get advantage of section 43 of the Kanoon Mal. The application is accordingly rejected with cost. Application dismissed