Short Note : The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by plaintiff respondent No.1 Aijaj Mohammad Khan against the defendant appellants for possession of the suit land. The plaintiff's case was that the suit land was Inami Muafi land, that on 31st March 1953 the plaintiff had effected a mortgage of the suit land in favour of defendant No.1, that the said mortgage was contrary to the provisions of the Dhar State Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1940-41. hereinafter called the Act, and that defendant No.1 was, therefore, in unlawful occupation of the suit land. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 inter alia on the ground that they were in possession of the suit land as sub-tenants and had acquired the rights of Bhumiswami. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit against defendants Nos. 1 and 2. On appeal, the lower appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Defendant No.1 has, therefore, filed this second appeal. Held: Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate Court erred in law in applying the provisions of section 85 (1) of the Act as it was not proved that the land in question was Inami Muafi land. The contention cannot be upheld. The plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the land in question was Inami Muafi land and the defendant, in his written-statement, had admitted that the land was Muafi land. Even assuming that the transaction entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was a lease and not a mortgage, the said transaction was contrary to the provisions of section 85 (1) of the Act and was thus void. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, right in holding that the appellants were in unlawful possession of the suit land and were trespassers, liable to be ejected in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellants was thus unable to point out that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court were contrary to law. Appeal dismissed.