uut\vithatanding anytldug contained in auy contract, tant or docurnent or any other law for the tiznc Lein. in force, all rights, title and interest \•hich a proprietor pos::csscd on account of hi. proprietorship of the land within the estate became Hsted in the State, except, inter alia, Jiis home-fann land and vccupied land. l'nder s. 2(g) of the Act home-farm lands were tllr,:-c whicli n·crc recorded as Sir and K/,udka11ht in the name of a proprietor in the annual papers f<,r the year 1948-49, lmt in the present case the lands in respect of'' liich a <leer cc -ha<l been passed in favour of the respondent, \·re not so recorded. On the other hand, tire lands were declared Malil· Mukbuza of the appdlaut under s. 41 of the Act. 111 the execution applicaiion for the rccovr-ry of possession filed Uy the 1cpor.dcnt the appellant raised objections 1hat tLe respondent was not en tided to execute the c!ccrec for possession as his proprietary rights except his 11omc·farm lands, ceased to exist on March :; I, 1951, by virtue of ss. J and 4 of the Act and became ve,ted in the State thereafter, and that the State had, after the date of vesting recognized the lands in suit to Le tenancy land of the appellant. The respondent's plea was that the appellant was not entitled lo raise such objections in the executing court, that the "xccutiug court could not go behind the decree and, therefore, must execute it and deliver possc~ion tu tlie respondent. The executing courr dismisst-d the objections raised by the appellant, and the High Court took the view, relying upon Ralrmatullah Klra11 v. Ma!.abir•ingh, I. L. R. [1955] Nag. IW3, that the lands in suit must be tttated as home-farm as it was the duty of reveuue authorities to make correct entries iu the village papers.
