JUDGMENT Dr. T N. Singh, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant whose suit was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed by the appellate Court. 2. An erst-while Zamindar, the plaintiff is, who claims the suit land to be his "Khudkasht" land on the basis of Khasra entries for Samvat 2007 and title therein on the ground that the land did not vest in the State on abolition of Zaminadari in virtue of section 4 (2) of M. B. Zaminadari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008, for short, Samvat 2008 Act. At this stage, the said provision may be quoted: "4. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khud kasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting." 3. The primary point for determination in this appeal is interpretation of relevant entries in khasra. Ex P-2 but restriction of the controversy undoubtedly carries disparate legal ramifications. The Khasra is in the printed form, prescribed by law. It is true that in column No.3 there is entry of ownership of the total land 14 biswas and 5 biswas and in column No.5 the entry is to the effect that it was Khud Kasht land of Khumansingh and others. In columns No. 10, 11 and 12 entries are to be made as respects Kharif crop while in columns No 13, 14 and 15 they relate to Rabi crop. However, the controversy centers around column Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24. It has to be carefully noted in this connection that all the four columns are sub-divisions, under the main caption "Gair Majrua Bhumi Ka Vivran". Columns 21 and 22 are clubbed together under the sub-head "Shamil Jot Khaton Ki" while columns No. 23 and 24 are of "Alawa Jot (Gair, Khaton Ki)". In Ex. P-2, in column No. 21 the entry is 'Kans' and in the corresponding column No. 22 the area shown in 6 big has 10 biswas. However, the position is made further clear in the Khasra for Samvat 2008 where the entries in columns No. 22 and 23 comprise of two items of Padali Kans' 6 bighas 10 biswas and ‘Padati Kadim’ 4 bighas 4 biswas, but this Khasra (Ex. p-3) is for Survey Nos. 439, 440 and 441 while Ex. P-2 is for Survey No. 439 only. 4. p-3) is for Survey Nos. 439, 440 and 441 while Ex. P-2 is for Survey No. 439 only. 4. Appellant's counsel, Shri Arun Mishra, bas relied on section 55 (ii) of the M. B. L. R. T. Act, Samvat 2007, for short, Samvat 2007 Act. Counsel has also relied on section 6 of Samvat 2008 Act. The provisions are extracted: "55. Duties of a tenant-A tenant shall use his holding only for agricultural purposes, namely:- (i) The growth ................ or (ii) the growth of grass or food for cattle” xxx xxx xxx "6. Suba to take possession of property vesting in the State.- On the date of vesting, the Suba shall take charge of all lands other than occupied lands and home-steeds and of all interests vesting in the State under section 3." 5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel on the decision in Bheron Singh v Govt. of M. P. 1983 RN 243 and with his usual ingenuity by Shri Mishra has also tried here to draw substance from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramanlal v. State of Gujrat 2. AIR 1969 SC 168 State Counsel, Shri Sinha, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Khuman Singh 1971 RN 351= 1971 JLJ 577 and on section 2 (d) of M. B. Kans Eradication Act, Samvat 2005, for short, Samvat 2005 Act. 6. The short contention of Shri Arun Mishra is that the holding in the Bench decision in Khumansingh (supra) does not non-suit the plaintiff because in that case their Lordships were not called upon to consider the import and purport of section 55 (ii) of Samvat 2007 Act. It is true that in Khumansingh's case (supra), the Court interpreted the expression "Khud-kasht" used in Samvat 2008 Act with the help of the legislative definition of the expression in section 2 (c) of the Act. It was held that the expression only means that the part of the land which was under personal cultivation of the Zamindar and that the entire land entered in a Khasra is not to be treated as "Khudkasht" and under actual cultivation for the mere reason that it was "so recorded" in the Khasra. It was held that the expression only means that the part of the land which was under personal cultivation of the Zamindar and that the entire land entered in a Khasra is not to be treated as "Khudkasht" and under actual cultivation for the mere reason that it was "so recorded" in the Khasra. The Court thus determined the term, scope and import of the expression "so recorded" used in section 4 (2) in relation to the term "KhudKasht" to enlarge the scope of divesting of a Proprietary holding. 7. Turning to section 55 aforesaid I may say that it merely deals with the duty of a tenant who is required to use his holdings only for agricultural purpose and according to clause (ii) for the purpose also of "the growth of grass or food for cattle". Because it is not disputed that 'Kans' is grass even according to section 2 (d) of M. P. Kans Eradication Act, Samvat 2005, it is the contention of Shri Arun Mishra that when 'Kans' was found on the suit land and it was so recorded in the Khasra the land covered there-under shall not vest in the State inasmuch as it is to be treated as land under cultivation used for the purpose of growing glass. The short answer to this contention is that the term "grass" in clause (2) must be understood in its context and setting. Indeed, as mandated by the time honored maxim Noscitur a sociis the word grass takes its colour from the words with which it keeps company. The object of clause (ii) must also be kept in view to underline positively the simple fact that fodder for cattle can be grown by a tenant and it is for this reason that the word "grass" is used in conjunction with the expression "or food for cattle". I may also add that here the term "or is used in conjunctive and not disjunctive sense•'. Clause (ii) does not mean any grass but only that species of grass which can be used as fodder for cattle. Unfortunately, 'kans' is not such grass. Indeed, it is defined in section 2 of samvat 2005 At, to mean "a kind of weed which grows spontaneously in the fields". Clause (ii) does not mean any grass but only that species of grass which can be used as fodder for cattle. Unfortunately, 'kans' is not such grass. Indeed, it is defined in section 2 of samvat 2005 At, to mean "a kind of weed which grows spontaneously in the fields". Indeed, the statutory provision for eradication of the weed was made considering that it was not conducive to any kind of agricultural operation, including use as fodder for cattle. At para 17 of the report in Ramanlal (supra) notice is taken rather of the fact that cattle would die without grass and therefore, grass is to be considered important for agricultural communities. Reliance on the decision, in the facts of the instant case, is apparently to the disadvantage of appellant and counters the submission made. 8 Because Bheron Singh (supra) was pressed in service with great vehemence I have to say few words on that, in that case the word “Beed” was noted in the column “Shamil Jot” and it was held that the entry meant that the land was under cultivation. What has not been noted in that case is the main caption "Gair Maryua Bhumi Ka Vivran" must have pervasive and paramount effect and that it created the presumption that any land under any of its four sub-heads could be treated to be under cultivation. Because, it cannot be disputed that the term "Gair majua" means land which is not under cultivation. It is also to be noted that Khuman Singh (supra) was Dot cited before his Lordship and the Single Bench, accordingly, took a view which is not countenanced by the Division Bench decision. In para 8 of the report the view taken is that when the records show that the land was recorded as "KhudKasht" the entry "Beed" in column "Shamil Jot" could not exclude it from the category of land considered "Khud-kasht" and that it would be excluded from vesting in State in virtue of section 4 (2) of the Samvat 2008 Act. 9. In so far as the contention based on section 6 of Samvat 2008 is concerned I have only to say a single word to dispose of the contention. 9. In so far as the contention based on section 6 of Samvat 2008 is concerned I have only to say a single word to dispose of the contention. An "occupied" land is saved from vesting in virtue of said section but clause (f) of section 2 of the said enactment itself defines the term occupied to mean such lands also as are held "Khud-kasht". Accordingly, the holding in Khuman singh (supra) is not displaced boy mere reliance on section 6 because the interpretation of the term "Khud kasht" and expression “so recorded" in that decision must prevail. 10, Like a drowning man catching the last straw, Shri Mishra stand up, at this stage, to invoke the aid of section 2 (b) of the same enactment which defines "land" to mean the land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture, pasture or animal husbandry. Counsel's contention is that in any view of the matter, the land which is shown as covered by 'Kans' should be held as land used for purpose connected with agriculture because 'Kans' is used as a manure in agriculture. However, that plea being not taken in the Courts below and no pleading or evidence being on record to that effect I do not have any jurisdiction at the stage to entertain that plea and to gave relief to the plaintiff on the basis thereof. 11. For all the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to hold that this appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.