JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The suit is for recovery of possession and for damages amounting to Rs. 30/- against Defendants 1 to 5. Defendant No. 6 is the ex-proprietor. Defendant No. 7 is the Anchal Adhikari. It is not necessary to give the detailed facts as to how this property was put to sale. The disputed property constitutes 0.541 acre in Touzi No. 1769. It was put to revenue sale on 11-3-1954. The estated vested in the State of Orissa on 1-5-1954 and the Bale was confirmed on 9-11-1954. If the estate had not vested, by virtue of the purchase and acquisition of title the Plaintiff would have been entitled to annul the leases in favour of Defendants 1 to 5 executed by the ex-proprietor u/s 52 of Act XI of 1859. Both the Courts below have held that the Plaintiff having lost title after vesting and not being in khas possession on that date is not entitled to recovery of possession. 2. The only question for consideration is whether after vesting the Plaintiff has the right to recover possession. The identical matter relating to the very touzi was examined in Second Appeal No. 24 of 19641, by one of us. Therein the various provisions of the Estates Abolition Act were examined and this Court held that the Plaintiff has no right to recovery of possession. Section 49(1), Clause (i) was considered therein. There was an observation in that judgment that the second part of the clause must relate to a proceeding with respect to survey and settlement operations. After having heard the learned Counsel we are of opinion that the observation made therein is not correct. The second part must relate to other proceedings pending before any court or tribunal under the relevant tenancy laws. Otherwise we endorse the correctness of that decision. 3. Mr. Ray however places strong reliance on Section 49(1), Clause (ii). It runs thus: Nothing contained in this Act shall in any way affect: ... ... ... ... (ii) any cause of action arising under any of the tenancy laws prior to the date of vesting and any right of appeal, review or revision arising out of any proceedings with respect to such causes of action. Law is now well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court also that on vesting the proprietor loses his title. Law is now well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court also that on vesting the proprietor loses his title. The title having been lost he cannot further claim any right to recovery of possession unless on the date of vesting the proprietor is himself in khas possession and claims any right under the relevant provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. Admittedly in this case the estate vested on 1-5-1954 and the Plaintiff lost his title. He was not also in khas possession. The cause of action for recovery of possession which vested in the Plaintiff prior to the date of vesting did not survive on the date of vesting. Sub-clause (ii) of Section 49(1) has therefore no application. The Plaintiff's suit was therefore rightly dismissed by the Courts below. 4. In the result, the appeal falls and is dismissed with costs. Patra J 5. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed