Ramji Dixit & Another v. Bhrigunath & Others
Shah, J, One Raj Kishore was possessed of sir and khudka..Wrl
lands, which on his death in 1923 devolved upon his widow
Sanwari. With the coming into force on July 1, 1952, of the U.P,
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, Sanwari
acquired the status of a bhumidhar in respect of those sir. and
khudkasht lands. On December 18, 1952, Sanwari made a gift of
the bhumidhari lands in favour of respondents 1 & 2. Sanwari
died in 1954. Claiming to be the nearest reversioners to the estare
of Raj Kishore, the appellants commenced an action in the Court
of Munsif, Deoria, for a declaration of their title to the lands gifted
by Sanwari, and for a decree for possession of those lands on the
768 SUPREME COURT RLl'ORTS [1968] 2 S.C.R.
pica, inter alia, that holding only a Hindu widow's estate in the
bhumidhari lands Sanwari was incompetent to create an interest
by gift which was to enure beyond hr lifetime. The suit was
dismissed by the Trial Court, and the decree was confinr.ed in
appeal by the Additional Civil Judge, Deoria. In second appeal
before the High Court of Allahabad Desai, C.J., and S. N. Dwivedi,
J., agreed with lhe judgments of the courlS below. Jagadish Sahai,
J., was of the opinion that Sanwari held in the bhumidhari lands
ill dispute only a life estate. Against the decree of the High Court
sonfirming the decree of the District Court, the plaintiffs have
appealed to this Court.
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act l of
1951 was primarily intended to abolish the rights of intermediaries
and to define the inletest of various classes of holders in possession
•f agricultural lands who since the extinction of the rights <>f inter
lllediaries had direct relation with the State. By s. 4 on the com-
111encement of !he Act all estates situate ill Uttar Pradesh stood
transferred to and vested in the Slate free from all encumbrances.
E~tinction of the interest of rhe intermediaries did not however
affect the interest of the tenants in the land who derivi:d their rlght
of occupation from the intermediaries. By s. 129, for the purpose
of the Act, there were to be three classes of tenure-holders-(!)
bhumidhars; (2) sirdars and (3) asamis. Bys. !30 every person
belonging to one cf the classes specified in els. (a) & (b) was tc be
a hh11midhar and was to have all the rights and to be subject to all
the liabilities, conferred or imposed upon bh11midhflrs by or under
the Act. The persons so entitled to bhumidhari rights were-(})
all persons who as a consequence of the acquisition n~ .:stales be
came bhumidhars under s.18; and ( 2) all persons who acquired the
rights of bhumidhars under or in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. Section I 8 provided, subject to exceptions not material
for the purpose of this appeal, !.hat all lands of the descriptions in
els. (a) to (e) shall on the dote immediately preceding the date of
v~sting be deemed to be settled by lhe State with tlie intermediary.
lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder, as the case may be, who
shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be entitled to rnkc or
retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof. Persons belonging to
th~ classes mentioned ins. 3 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Ac
quisition of Privileges) Act. 1949, who had obtained the declara
tion referred to in s. 6 of that A':t in respect of any holding or
share thereof were also to be deemed bh11midhars of the holding
or the share therein in respect of which the declaration had been
made and continued in force. Section 134 provided for acquisi
tion of bhumidhari rights by a sirdar, by paying to the credit of
the State Government an amount equal to ten times the land
revenue payable or deemed to be payable on the date of applica
tion for the land of which he is the sirdar. The Act provided by
It
..
'
RAMJI DIX!T V. BHRIGUNATH (Shah, /.) 769
'· 189 that the interest of a bhumidhar in his holding or any
part thereof shall be extinguishtd-(a) when he dies intestate
leaving no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the , pro
visions of the Act; (aa) when the holding or part thereof has beeJ!,
transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of the
Act; (b) when the land comprised in the holding has. been ac~
.quired under any law for the time being in force relating to the
acquisition of land, or (c) when he has been deprived of posses
sion and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation.
By s. 152 it was provided that :
"The interest of a bhumidhar shall be transferable
subject to the conditions hereinafter contained in. this
chapter."
Restrktions on the rights of a bhumidhar to transfer a holding
by sale, gift, mortgage, lease and exchange were prescribed hr
ss. 154, 155, 156 and 165 and transfers in contravention of the
provisions rendered the bhumidhars liable to eviction from the
holding. Section 169 provided :
" ( l) A bhumi'dhar may by will bequeath his hold
ing or any part thereof except as provided in sub-section
(2).
(2) No bhumidhar entitled to any holding or part
in the right of a widow, widow of a male lineal descen
dant in the male line of descent, mother, daughter,
father's mother, son's daughter, sister or half-sister being
the daughter· of the same father as the deceased, may
bequeath by will such holding or part.
(3)
Section 171 provided, inter alia, that subject to the prov1s1ons
of s. 169, when a bhumidhar being a male dies, his interest in
his holding shall devolve. upon classes of heirs male and female-in
the order of succession given in els. (a) to (r). The section wa
.amended from time to time. Females who were entitled te
inherit to the holding under the section as finally amended hr
Act 37 of 1958 were-(a) widow of a predeceased male lineal
descendant who has not remarried when there were male descen
dants; (b) widow and widowed mother and widow of a prede
ceased male lineal descendant in the· male line of descent, who
had not re-married; (ee) unmarried daughter; (ff) unmarried sis
ter; (g) married daughter; (m) married sister; (n) half-sister being
the daul!hter of the same father as the deceased. Section 172(1}
provided, inter alia, that on the death or marriage of a woman
who had inherited. the interest in the holding after the, date of
vesting under the Act, as an heir to a mafe bhumidhar, as a
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S.C.ll..
widow, widow of a male lineal descendant, mother, father's
mother, daughter, son's daughter or sister or half-sister of the
last holder, the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving
heir determined in accordance with the provisions of s. 171 of
the last male bhumidhar, and the same rule of devolution shall
he followed when the female abandons or surrenders the holding.
Sub-section (2) of s. 172 dealt with devolution of int.,rest on the
death of a female bhumidhar belonging to any of the classes listed
in sub-s. (I) who had inherited an interest in any holding before
the date of vesting, as an intermediary of the land comprised in
the holding, or held the holding as a tenant belonging to the classes
specified. If the female holder was entitled to a limited estate
in the holding in accordance with the personal law, the interest
wa~ to devolve upon the nearest surviving heirs in accordance
with the provisions of s. 1 71 of the last male intermediary or
tenant of the land, and if she was under the personal law entitled
to the holding absfllutely, it was to devolve in accordance with
the table in s. 174. It was further provided that where a female
bhumidhar of any of the classes mentioned in sub-s. (2) dies,
abandons or surrenders and wher~ the female being a widow,
widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent,
mother, father's mother, manies and such bhumidhar on the
date inuoediately before the date held the holding otherwise than
as an intermediary or tenant referred to in cl. (a) of s. 172(2),
the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviYing heir of the
last male tenant, ascertained in accordan~e with the provisions of
s. 171. Section 172A, which was incorporated by Act 30 of
1954, provided that where an inferior female tenureholdPr like
a sirdar or an adhivasi has inherited any interest in any holding
in any of the relationships mentioned in s. 171 (2) and has ac
quired the rights of a bhumidhar in such land, the right so ac
quired shall for purposes of devolution under s. 172 be deemed
to be accession to the holding of the last male holder thereof.
Section 17 4 provided, inter alia, that when a female bhumidhar,
[other than a bhumidhar mentioned in ss. 171 (sic.) or 172]
dies, her interest in the holdinj! shall devolve in accordance with
tJie order of succession given in that section. By that list, the
predeceased son's widow and predeceased son's predeceased sm:i's
widow, daughter, mother and sister were the female heirs compe
tent to inherit the holding. Section 175 provided that in the case
or a co-widow, or a co-tenure-bolder, who dies leaving no heir
entitled to succeed under the provisions of the Act, the interest
shall pass by survivorship.
Section 152 expressly provides that the interest of a bhumid
har shall be transferable, subject to the conditions contained in
Ch. VIH. The conditions to which the transfet is subject are
to be found in ss. 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 163, 164 and 165
ff
·•
P.AMJI DIXIT v. BHRIGUNATH (Shah., /.) 771
These conditions do not purport to qualify the interest or the
title in the holding of a bhumidhar.: they merely impose restric
tions upon the right of a bhumidhar to transfer his interest. By
s. 152 no distinction is made between the power to transfer the
interest by act inter vivas by a male bhumidhar and a female. bhu
midhar. Prima faciq, therefore. the power of a female bhum1dhar
to transfer her interest in a holding by act inter vivas is as extensive
as the power which a male bhumidhar may exercise in
respect of his interest in a holding. By s. 169 (1) a bhumi
dhar is declared competent by will to 'bequeath his holding or
any part thereof except as provided in sub-s. (2). But a female
bhumidhar belonging to any of the classes specified in sulH.
(2) is declared incompetent to bequeath by will her holding.
This restriction operates against every female bhumidhar entitled
to a holding in the right of a female relation mentioned in sub.
s. (2). It is plain on the words of the statute that a female who
is entitled to the holding in the right of a widow of a male lineal
descendant in the male line, or mother, daughter, father's mother,
oon's daughter, sister or half-sister, whether under s. 171 or
under s. 17 4, is declared incompetent to bequeath the holding by
will.
Counsel for the appellant contends that s. 152 makes the in
terest in a holding of a bhumidhar whether male or female tram
ferab!e, but it is not intended thereby to declare thai the inter~!
of a female bhumidhar is in all cases absolute. Undoubtedly, if
the interest of a bhumidhar in a holding is limited, he cannot tram
lllit a larger interest than his own. But there is no express pro
vision in the Act which defines the interest of a female bhumidh11r
under the Act. It is common ground that the personal Jaw of
inheritance of the holder does not determine the nature of the
estate vested in i a female bhumidhar. Counsel for the appellant
says, however, that the Act contains, indications that the interest
of a female bhumidhar extends only to a life-interest in the hold
ing held by her. Those indications are, according to counsel for
the appellant-(a) to females of the. classes mentioned in s. 169
(2) the right to make a testamentary disposition of bhumidhari
holding was expressly denied; (b) on the death of a female bhumi
dhar who had inherited the holding under s. 171 from a male
bhumidhar or on abandonment or surrender by her the holding
devolves not upon her heirs but upon the nearest surviving heirs
of the last male bhumidhar; ( c) on the death of a female belong
ing tc any of the classes mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 172 who
had inherited the land comprised in the holding before the date
of vesting and was in accordance with the personal law applic
able to her entitled to a life-estate only in the holding, the holding
devolves up011 the nearest surviving heirs of the last male inter
mediary or the tenant and in the case of .a female tenure-holder
not belonging to the classes mentioned in s. 172(2) (a) the holding
devolves on death, ab:indonment or surrender upon the heirs men
tioned in s. 171 of the last male tenant; (d) the right of the female
heir belonging to the classes specified in s. 172( 1) who inherited
the holding under s. 171 and of a widow, widow of a male linGal
descendant in the nialc line, mother, and father's mother who
has inherited beFore the datP. of vesting and docs not fa!l within
s. I 72(2)(a) is forfeited upon marriage or remarriage; and (cl by
s. I 72A interest acquired by a female heir inheriting an interest
in any holding as a sirdar or an adhivm·i when converted into a
bhumidhari interest under s. 134 or s. 235 is for the purpose of
devolution under s: 172 to be deemed an accession to the holding
of the last male holder. These provisions, counsel con1cnds,
clearly indicate that the interest of the female bhumidhars men
tioned ins. 169(2) is not intended to cnure beyond her lifc.;imc
and is liable to be extinguished in certain conditions even during
her life-time, and is on that account merely a life-interest. We
are un:1blc to accept this submission as. correct. Counsel for the
11ppcllants asks us to infer that th_c estate of a female bhumidhar
!ailing within sub-s. (2) of s. 169 is a life-interest as a matter of
necessary implication from the express denial of the right to
llcqueath the holding and devolution according to special rules on
llcath, abandonment or surrender, and forfeiture on marriage or
1emarriage in certain cases. But ·there is, in our judgment, nca
discernible relation between the nature of the-estate of a female
bolder, and the restriction placed upon the power of testamentary
disposition or the special rules of devolution of the holding of
-a female bhumidhar on death, abandonment or surrender, or
forfeiture resulting from marriage or remarriage. From the vari
'1tls provisions made in the Act it is impossible to evolve any
eonsistent or logical pattern, indicating that the LegL,Jaturc '.n
lendcd by imrosing the special rules of devolution of the interest
of a female bhumidhar on death, marriage, abandonment or sur
~nder, to make her tenure in the holdmg a mere life-estate.
Restriction on the power of testamentary disposition is not
imposed upon only those females who inherit the holding under
1. 171 on the death of a male bhumidhar. It applies alike to thD
tenure of a female bhumidhar who inherits the holding from a
female hhumidhar under s. 174, and from a male bhumidhar
under s. 171. A female bhumidhar under s. 174 apparently has
an absolute interest in her holding: the persons who inhcri' 'he
holding from her accnrdin~ to the order of succession mentioned
in s. 174 also take the holding in absolute right. In the table of
heirs in s. 174 arc included a predeceased son's widow, a nrr
deceased son's predeceJsed son's widow, daughter, mother ~nd
sister. and there 0cin2 no indication to the contrary the holding
of a female bhumidhar will devolve upon those female heirs in
IC
' B
RAMJI DIXIT V. BHRIGUNATH (Shah, /.) 773
absolute right. Those heirs arc included in the list of female
heirs in s. 169(2). The result is that while under s. 174 the
female heir would take the holding on inheritance .from a female
with full power to transfer by act inter vivos, she would still be
subject to a restriction on· her power of testamentary disposition.
Again the female heir of any of the classes mentione<i ins. 172(2)
(a) (ii) who is entitled to a holding absoluiely though not liable to
be divested on marriage also is incompetent to bequeath her hold
ing, if she has inherited ·it in the right of any of the fetnalt: rela
tions mentioned in s. 169(2). The rule that on death or marriage
of a female bhumidhar who has inherited a holding under s. 1.71
the holding will devolve upon the heirs of the last male bhumidhar
also does not imply that her tenure is merely of a holder for life.
Under the general law, a restriction upon the power of testamen
tary disposition docs not necessarily carry with it a limitation
upon the tenure of the holder so as to restrict the power of dis
position inter vfros. It is well-recognized that a II)Uslim by his
personal Jaw is incompetent to dispose of property exceeding a
third without the consent of the heirs. But it caqnot be sugge<"..;;d
that his power of disposition inter vivos is on that account res
tricted.
Counsel for the appellants asked us to assume that sub-s. (2)
of s. 169 only applies to holdings inherited by female heirs from
male bhumidhars under s. 171. But the Legislature has made
no such express provision, and we are unable to hold that such
a reservation is implied. The fact that in sub-s. _(2) of s. 169 as
it stands enacted after amendment by Act XXi of 1954 all fema
les who inherit the holding from a male bhumidhar under s. 171
are listed as incompetent to bequeath a holding is a very slender
foundation for inferring the legislative intent that the restriction
upon the power of disposition is sought to be limited to females
who inherit the holding under s. 171. It may be noticed that
under s. 171 as originally enacted, the widow of a male lineal des
cendant in the male line of descent was an heir to male bhumid
lrar, but she was not disqualified from bequeathing the holding
tmder s. 169(2) as originally enacted.
Other indications to the contrary may also be gathered from
the amendments made by the Legislature in ss. 169(2) and 171
from time to time. Under s. 169(2) as originally enacted, amongst
the classes of persons who were prohihitcd from making a testa
mentary disposition was the' father's father. By s. 173 of the
Act when a bhumidhar inheriting an interest in a holding as a
father's frther, whether before or after the date of vesting, died,
abandoned, or surrendered such hokli11g. the holding was to· de
volve upon the nearest surviving heir (ascertained in accordance
with s. 171 ) of the last male bliumidhar from whom the father's
father had inherited the holding. By Act XX of 1954, s. 173
77-i SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968) 2 S.C.R.
was repealed, and reference to the father's father was delctzd
from the list of heirs incompetent to bequeath by will a bhum~
hari holding. If denial of testamentary power to a holder of
bhumidhari land implied that the b0lder had merely a lif~tate
to the Legislature must be imputed an intention to convert what
was a life-interest till Act XX of 1954 was passed into an absolute
estate. The position of a father's father in the scheme of the Act
before and after the amendment of the Act in I 954 would, if the
argument of the appellant be accepted, furnish a striking illustra-
tion of obscurity in the provisions of the Act.
A review of other provisions enacted in the Act from time to
time also doc.; not indicate anv definite scheme, or disclose an
intention to confer merely a life-estate only upon female heirs
of bhumidhars. By s. 169 as origir;ally enacted by sub-s. (2) the
widow, mother, step-mother, father's father, father's mother, un
married daughter and unmarried sister were not competent to
~xercise the power of testamentary disposition of the holding.
We have already referred to the omission of the widow of a male
lineal descendant in the male line of descent who was one of the
heirs under s. 171 from the list of female heirs who were not pro
hibited by s. 169(2), as it stood before it was amended by Act
XX of 1954, from making testamentary disposition. By the
amendment made by Act XX of 1954 restrictions upon the poW'CI£
of testamentary disposition applied only to female bhumidhars
who inherited the holding in the right of the specified relatiom.
For the first time a married daughter or married sister and a half
<ister were given separate places in the list of heirs in s. 171(1)
by Act 37 of 158-an unmarried daughter being preferred to a
married daughter, and an unmarried sister to a married sister, bnt
half-sisters married and unmarried took the holding simultane
ously. After the amendment of the Act by Act 37 of 1958, an
unmarried daughter was entitled to inherit the holding of hec
father, but ber interest was forfeited on marriage, wherea., a
married daughter was entitled to inherit the holding. By the Act
therefore the interest in the holding of an unmarried daughter or
unmarried sister was forfeited, but a married dau)!hter or married
'ister was an heir to the holding of a male bhumidhar.
The principle contended for by counsel for the appellant is
also not discernible in the scheme of s. 172. When a female
bhumidhar mentioned ins. 172(2) (a) (ii) dies or a female bhumi-
dhar mentioned ins. 172(2)(b) who has inherited the holding
before the date of vesting as a daughter, son's daughter, sister or
half-sister marries, the holding will not devolve upon the heirs H
of the last male holder, but upon her heirs under s. 174, but the
holding may still not be bequeathed by her by will. Absence of
testamentary power in a female bhumidhar qua her holding is •
RAMJI DIXIT v; BHRIGUNATH (Shah, I.) 77.5
reconcilable with devolution upon the heirs of the female bhumid
har, and an absolute title during her life-time. That is clearly
illustrated by the nature of the interest which the heirs of the
classes referred to in s. 172(2)(a)(ii) hold.
It is in the circumstances difficult to draw any inference from
the various provisions which do not disclose any logical or sys
tematic pattern that it was intended to impose upon a female heir
mentioned in the list in s. 169(2) a limitation that she was, not
withstanding the amplitude of the expressions used in s. 152, not
competent to dispose of her interest beyond her life-time.
It was urged that the Legislature has by using two different
expressions "interest" and "holding" in s. 172 indicated that the
expression "interest" may in the case of a female heir indicate
a life-interest in the holding. By s. 152 it is expressly enacted
that the interest of a bhumidhar shall be transferable. It is true
that no person .can convey a larger interest than what he posse5-
ses. But there is nothing in s. 152 from which it may be inferred
that the interest of a female bhumidhar is anything less than the
interest held by a male bhumidhar. Section 169(1) provides that
a bhumidhar may by will bequeath his holding .or any part there
of, except as provided in sub-s. (2), and sub-s. (2) prohibits female
bhumidhars of the classes mentione'I therein from making a
bequest by will of the holding or any part thereof. Section 169
seeks to make no distinction between the holding and interest in
a holding. Even in s. 171 the right or a male bhumidhar for the
purpose of devolution upon his heirs-male as well as female-~
referred to as "interest". In s. 172, however, the Legislature has
enacted that a bhumidhar who has after the date of vesting in
herited an interest in any holding as a widow, (to use a compendi
ous expression), or as a daughter or a sister, when she marries,
dies, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof, the
holdinR or any part thereof shall devolve upon the nearest surviv
ing heir. It was argued that the Legislature has designated the
estate inherited by a female as a bhumidhar as "interest" and the
devolution in the contingencies mentioned as of the "holding".
Similar phraseology is used in sub-s. (2) of s. 172, which speaks
of inheritance of an "interest" and devolution of the "holding"
upon the heirs. The same schemes is also adopted in s. 172A.
Where a sirdar or an adhivasi acquires an interest in any holding
and then acquire the rights of a bhumidhar it is orovided by
s. l 72A that the rights so acquired shall be deemed to be accession
to the holding of the last male holder. But in s. 174 it is provid
ed that the "interest" of a female bhumidhar, sirdar or asami,
other than a bhumidhar. sirdar or asami mentioned in s. 17l or
'· I 72 on her death devolves in accordance with the order of suc
cession mentioned in that section. The difference in phraseo-
776 SUPRF.ME. COURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S.C.R.
logy, in our judgment, docs not indicate that the expression "inte·
rest" of a female heir in a holding has a restricted connotation.
The two exprcs,ions have been indi,criminatcly used.
There is nothing in the Act which indicates that when a
female who inherits the rights of a bhumidhar, under s. 171 or
s. 172 or s. 172A, any residuary interest remains vested in any
other person. Under the Act she is the owner of the property :
the entire estate is vested in her. It is a fundamental rule of our
jurisprudence that an estate docs not remain in abeyance. If ii
was intended by the Legislature that the interest inherited hy a
female mentioned in s. 171 was to be a life-interest, there wnuld
be some indication that the rcversionary or residuary intcres• re
mains vested in another person designated for that purpose. But
a search in that behalf in the Act is fruitfe,s.
On a careful review of the provisions of the Act, we arc 11n
<1bk to hold that ii was intended by the Legislature to en2c! by
imrlication that the holding inherited by a female heir helongiPg
to one of the classes of female heirs in s. 171 is not held as a
lifc·eslate.
One important : .. ·· l.111ve development which throws some
light on the qucslio11 •) also he noticed. The U.P. Zamindari
Abolition .and Land Reforms Bill was published in 1949. llefore
&he scheme incorporated in the Bill could he implemented con
siderable spade-work had 10 be done. and the Bill could he
brc.ughl before the Legislature after great delay. In the n'ean
while it was apprehc~ded. the intermediaries may de;-nve the
tenants of the lands in their occupation. The Legislature there
fore, as an interim measure, enacted the U.P. Agricultural Ten
:1Dls (Acquisition of Privileges). Act 10 of 1949. By" s. 3 of that
Act certain classes of tenants could apply to be declared entitled
to acquire the privileges on payment to the State an amount
equal to ten times the annual rent payable or deemed to be r,ay
.able in respect of the holding. and on making an application in
that behalf to the Assistant Collector. Those rights were con
ferred by later amendments upon sub-tenants and unrecorded cn
tenants. By s. 7 it was provided that upon the grant of the dc
clardlion the applicant shall, with effect from the date of pa~
menl or deposit of the amount payable. be entitled to th~ privi
leges against cjcctmenl in execution of any decree or order of
ejectmenl. Clause (c) was added in s. 7 by item 5 of Sch. IV
of U.P. Acl I of 1951, and that clause provided :
"The applicant shall. except as hereinafter excepted,
he entitled, notwithstanding anything contained in the
U.P. Temi:1cy Act. l 939, or any contract to bequeath
..
RAMJI DIXIT V. BHRIGUNATH (Shah, /.) 777
A by will or transfer by way of sale, simple mortga~e or
gift his interest in the holding or his share therem .
..
Sedion 340 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re
forms Act l of 1951 provided that '"where any orders .have been
made, proceedings taken, declarations granted, or jurisdiction ex
ercised under the prov.isions of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants
(Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, the provisions of the said
Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained therein, be so read
and construed as if the amendments mentioned in Schedule IV
had been made therein and were in force from the commence
ment of the said Act." Clearly by the enactment of cl. ( c) in
s. 7 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges)
Act, 1949, the tenant who deposited the amount payable by him
became competent, notwithstanding anything contained in the
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, or any contract, to bequeath by will
or transfer by way of sale, simple mortgage or gift his interest
in the holding or his share therein, and this holding by virtue of
s. 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in
respect of an occupancy tenant, a hereditary tenant or a grove.
holder and in respect of a tenant belonging to certain other speci
fied classes became the bhumidhari holding of the tenant. In the
absence of any express provision in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act l of 1951, taking away the right to make
a disposition, inter vivos, which was expressly conferred bys. 7(c)
of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisitidn of Privileges) Act,
1949, upon 'the tenant who had acquired the privileges under that
Act, when the tenant became entitled to bhumidhari rights, it
would be difficult to hold that by implication those rights were not
exercisable and must be deemed to have been taken away on the
coming into force of the U.P. Act 1of1951.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. There will be
no order a' to costs.
Y.P.
Appeal di.vmissed.