http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: RAMJI DIXIT & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHRIGUNATH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/1968

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BACHAWAT, R.S. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1053            1968 SCR  (3) 489  CITATOR INFO :  R          1970 SC 564  (55,97,112,176)  R          1970 SC1292  (10)  RF         1971 SC 530  (54,329)  RF         1971 SC1409  (33)  RF         1973 SC1461  (12,19)  RF         1974 SC2364  (4)  D          1975 SC1058  (8)  RF         1977 SC1361  (192)  R          1978 SC 597  (58)  O          1978 SC 803  (30,31,32,33,34,37)  RF         1986 SC1126  (48)  RF         1989 SC1741  (10)

ACT: U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P.  1  of 1951), ss. 152, 171, 172-Inheritance by Hindu  widow-Becomes bhumidhar-Whether life estate.

HEADNOTE: On  the  death  of her husband,  certain  cultivatory  lands devolved  on a Hindu widow.  She became a bhumidhar  on  the enactment  of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land  Reforms Act of 1951.  Thereafter she gifted the lands to respondents 1 and 2. On her death, the appellants. who were reversioners to her husband’s estate filed a suit claiming that the widow had  only  a  life-estate  in  the  bhumidhari  lands,   and therefore. the gift which was to enure beyond her life  time was  incompetent.  The suit was dismissed.   Dismissing  the appeal, this Court, HELD : 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 a. 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. Absence of testamentary power in a female bhumidhar qua  her holding  is reconcilable with devolution upon the  heirs  of the female bhumidhar, 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  9.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

172(2)(a) (ii) hold. [774 H, 776 B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1965. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated December  10,  1963 of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Second Appeal No. 1315 of 1958. J.   P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellants. M.   K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for respondents Nos.  1 and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah  J. One Raj Kishore was possessed of sir and  khudkasht 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 estate 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 7 68 plea,  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  her  lifetime. The  suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, and  the  decree was  confirmed  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  the judgments  of the courts below.  Jagadish Sahai, J., was  of the  opinion  that Sanwari held in the bhumidhari  lands  in dispute only a life estate.  Against the decree of the  High Court  confirming  the  decree of the  District  Court,  the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of  1951 was   primarily   intended   to  abolish   the   rights   of intermediaries and to define the interest of various classes of holders in possession of agricultural lands who since the extinction  of  the  rights  of  intermediaries  had  direct relation with the State.  By S. 4 on the commencement of the Act  all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh stood  transferred to  and  vested  in the State free  from  all  encumbrances. Extinction  of  the interest of the intermediaries  did  not however  affect the interest of the tenants in the land  who derived  their right of occupation from the  intermediaries. By  s.  129, for the purpose of the Act, there  were  to  be three classes of tenure-holders-(1) bhumidhars; (2)  sirdars and (3) asamis.  By S. 130 every person belonging to one  of the  classes  specified  in  cls. (a) &  (b)  was  to  be  a bhumidhar  and was to have all the rights and to be  subject to all the liabilities, conferred or imposed upon bhumidhars by or under the Act.  The persons so entitled to  bhumidhari rights  were-(1)  all persons who as a  consequence  of  the acquisition  of estates became bhumidhars under s. 1 8;  and (2)--all persons who acquired the rights of bhumidhars under or in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  Section  1 8  provided,  subject  to exceptions not  material  for  the purpose  of this appeal, that all lands of the  descriptions in  cls. (a) to (e) shall on the date immediately  preceding

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

the  date  of vesting be deemed to be settled by  the  State with  the  intermediary. lessee, tenant, grantee  or  grove- holder,  as  the  case may be, who  shall,  subject  to  the provisions  of  the  Act,  be entitled  to  take  or  retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof.  Persons belonging to the classes  mentioned in s. 3 of the U.P. Agricultural  Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, who had obtained  the declaration  referred to in s. 6 of that Act in  respect  of any  holding  or  share  thereof  were  also  to  be  deemed bhumidhars of the holding or the share therein in respect of which the declaration had been made and continued in  force. Section 134 provided for acquisition 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 application for the  land  of which he is the sirdar.  The Act provided by 769 s.   189 that the interest of a bhumidhar in his holding  or any  part  thereof shall be extinguished-(a)  when  he  dies intestate leaving no heir entitled to inherit in  accordance with  the  provisions of the Act; (aa) when the  holding  or part   thereof   has  been  transferred  or   let   out   in contravention  of the provisions of the Act; (b)  when  -the land  comprised in the holding has been acquired  under  any law for the time being in force relating to the  acquisition of land, or (c) when he has been deprived of possession  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." Restrictions  on  the, rights of a bhumidhar to  transfer  a holding  by  sale, gift, mortgage, lease and  exchange  were prescribed  by ss. 1.54, 155, 156 and 165 and  transfers  in contravention  of  the provisions  rendered  the  bhumidhars liable to eviction from the holding.  Section 169 provided:               "(1)  A  bhumidhar may by  will  bequeath  his               holding 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 descendant 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 provisions  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 cls. (a) to (r).  The section was amended from time to time. Females  who were entitled to inherit to the  holding  under the  section as finally amended by Act 37 of  1958  were-(a) widow  of a predeceased male lineal descendant who  has  not remarried  when there were male descendants; (b)  widow  and widowed  mother  and  widow of  a  predeceased  male  lineal descendant  in  the male line of descent, who  had  not  re- married;  (ee) unmarried daughter; (ff.)  unmarried  sister; (g)  married daughter; (m) married sister;  (n)  half-sister being  the  daughter  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 male bhumidhar, as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

7 70 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  be followed when the female  abandons  or surrenders  the  holding.  Sub-section (2) of S.  172  dealt with  devolution  of  interest  on the  death  of  a  female bhumidhar  belonging to any of the classes listed in  sub-s. (1) 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 class" specified.  If the female holder was entitled  to a  limited  estate  in the holding in  accordance  with  the personal  law, the interest was to devolve upon the  nearest surviving heirs in accordance with the provisions of s.  171 of the last male intermediary or tenant of the land, and  if she  was  under  the personal law entitled  to  the  holding absolutely,  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) dice,  abandons or surrenders and where the female  being  a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, mother, father’s mother, marries and such bhumidhar on  the  date immediately before the date held  the  holding otherwise  than as an intermediary or tenant referred to  in cl.  (a)  of s. l72(2), the holding shall devolve  upon  the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant,  ascertained in accordance with the provisions of s. 171.  Section  172A, which  was  incorporated by Act 30 of  1954,  provided  that where  an inferior female tenure holder 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  acquired 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 174 provided, inter alia, that when a female bhumidhar, [other than a bhumidhar mentioned in ss. 171  (sic.)or 172] dies, her interest in the  holding  shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given  in that section.  By that list, the predeceased son’s widow and predeceased son’s predeceased son’s widow, daughter,  mother and  sister were the female heirs competent to  inherit  the holding.   Section  175 provided that in the cage of  a  co- widow,  or  a  co-tenure-holder, 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 bhumidhar  shall be transferable, subject to the  conditions contained in Ch. VIII.  The conditions to which the transfer is  subject are to be found in ss. 154, 155, 156, 157,  161, 163, 164 and 165. 771 These conditions do not purport to qualify the interest,  or the title in the holding of a bhumidhar : they merely impose restrictions  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 vivos by a  male bhumidhar  and a female bhumidhar.  Prima facie,  therefore, the power of a female bhumidhar to transfer her interest  in a  holding by act inter vivos 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 bhumidhar is declared competent  by  will  to bequeath his  holding  or  any  part

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

thereof  except  as provided in sub-s. (2).   But  a  female bhumidhar belonging to any of the -classes specified in sub- s.  (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, son’s daughter, sister or  half- sister,  whether under s. .171 or under s. 174, 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 transferable, but it is not intended thereby to declare that the interest of a female bhumidhar is in all cases absolute. Undoubtedly, if the interest of a bhumidhar in a holding  is limited, he cannot transmit a larger interest than his  own. But  there is no express provision in the Act which  defines the  interest  of a female bhumidhar under the Act.   It  is common  ground that the personal law of inheritance  of  the holder does not determine the nature of the estate vested in 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 holding 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  bhumidhar  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  belonging to 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 applicable  to  her entitled to a life-estate  only  in  the holding,  the  holding devolves upon the  nearest  surviving heirs of the last male intermediary or the tenant and in the case of a female tenure-holder 772 not belonging to the classes mentioned in S. 172(2) (a)  the holding devolves on death, abandonment or surrender upon the heirs  mentioned 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 lineal descendant in the male  line, mother,  and father’s mother- who has inherited  before  the date  of  vesting and does not fall within S.  172(2)(a)  is forfeited  upon marriage or remarriage; and (e) by  s.  172A interest  acquired by a female heir inheriting  an  interest 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 contends, clearly indicate that the interest of  the female bhumidhars mentioned in s. 169(2) is not intended  to enure beyond her life,-time 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  unable  to accept   this  submission  as  correct.   Counsel  for   the appellants  asks  us to infer that the estate  of  a  female bhumidhar  falling  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 bequeath  the  holding  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

devolution according to special rules on death,  abandonment or  surrender, and forfeiture on marriage or  remarriage  in certain   cases.   But  there  is,  in  our   judgment,   no discernible  relation between the nature of the estate of  a female .holder, 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 various provisions made in the Act  it is  impossible to evolve any consistent or logical  pattern, indicating  that  the Legislature intended by  imposing  the special  rules  of devolution of the interest  of  a  female bhumidhar  on death, marriage, abandonment or surrender,  to make her tenure in the holding a mere life-estate. Restriction on the power of testamentary disposition is  not imposed  upon  only those females who  inherit  the  holding under  S. 171 on the death of a male bhumidhar.  It  applies alike  to the tenure of a female bhumidhar who inherits  the holding  from  a female bhumidhar 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 inherit the holding from her according  to  the order  of  succession  mentioned in s.  174  also  take  the holding in absolute right.  In the table of heirs in s.  174 are included a predeceased son’s widow, a predeceased  son’s predeceased  son’s widow, daughter, mother and  sister,  and there  being no indication to the contrary the holding of  a female bhumidhar will devolve upon those female heirs in 773 absolute  right.   Those heirs are 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 mentioned in s. 172(2) (a) (ii)  who  is entitled  to  a holding absolutely though not liable  to  be divested  on  marriage also is incompetent to  bequeath  her holding, if she has inherited it in the right of any of  the female  relations mentioned in s. 169(2).  The rule that  on death or marriage of a female bhumidhar who has inherited  a holding under s. 171 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   testamentary disposition does not necessarily carry with it a  limitation upon the tenure of the holder so as to restrict the power of disposition  inter  vivos.   It is  well-recognized  that  a muslim  by  his personal law is incompetent  to  dispose  of property exceeding a third without the consent of the heirs. But  it  cannot be suggested that his power  of  disposition Inter vivos is on that account restricted. Counsel  for the appellants asked us to assume  that  sub-s. (2)of  s. 169 only applies to holdings inherited  by  female heirs  front  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 XX of 1954 all females  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

widow  of  a  male lineal descendant in  the  male  line  of descent  was  an  heir to male bhumidhar, but  she  was  not disqualified from bequeathing the holding under 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  prohibited  from making  a  testamentary  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 father, whether  before or   after  the  date  of  vesting,  died,   abandoned,   or surrendered  such holding, the holding was to  devolve  upon the  nearest surviving heir (ascertained in accordance  with s.  171)  of the last male bhumidhar from whom  the  fathers father had inherited the holding.  By Act XX of 1954, s. 173 774 was  repealed,  and  reference to the  father’s  father  was deleted  from the list of heirs incompetent to  bequeath  by will a bhumidhari holding.  If denial of testamentary  power to  a holder of bhumidhari land implied that the holder  had merely  a life-estate 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 1954 would, if the argument  of the  appellant be accepted, furnish a striking  illustration of obscurity in the provisions of the Act. A review of other provisions enacted in the Act from time to time also does not indicate any definite scheme, or disclose an intention to confer merely a life-estate only upon female heirs  of  bhumidhars.  By s. 169 as originally  enacted  by sub-s. (2) the widow, mother, step-mother, father’s  father, father’s  mother,  unmarried daughter and  unmarried  sister were  not  competent to exercise 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 prohibited 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   power   of testamentary  disposition applied only to female  bhumidhars who  inherited  the holding in the right  of  the  specified relations.  For the first time a married daughter or married sister  and a half sister 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,  but  half-sisters married  and  unmarried  took  the  holding  simultaneously. After  the  amendment  of  the Act by Act  37  of  1958,  an unmarried  daughter was entitled to inherit the  holding  of her  father,  but her interest was  forfeited  on  marriage, whereas  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 daughter or married sister 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 in s. 172 (2) (a) (ii) dies or a  female bhumidhar mentioned in s. 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 of the last male holder, but upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

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 7 7 5 reconcilable  with devolution upon the heirs of  the  female bhumidhar, 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 systematic pattern that it was intended to impose upon  a  female heir mentioned in the list in  S.  169(2)  a limitation  that she was, notwithstanding 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  possesses.   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  thereof, except as provided in sub-S. (2), and  sub-s. (2)  prohibits  female bhumidhars of the  classes  mentioned therein from making a bequest by will of the holding or  any part  thereof.   Section 1 69 seeks to make  no  distinction between the holding, and interest in a holding.  Even in  S. 171  the  right  of-it male bhumidhar  for  the  purpose  of devolution  upon  his  heirs-male  as  well  as   female--is referred  to  as  "interest".   In  S.  172,  however,   the Legislature  has enacted that a bhumidhar who has after  the date  of vesting inherited an interest in any holding  as  a widow,  (to use a compendious expression), or as a  daughter or a sister, when she marries, dies, abandons or  surrenders such  holding  or  part thereof, the  holding  or  any  part thereof  shall devolve upon the nearest surviving 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  2nd  then acquire the rights of a bhumidhar it is provided bys.  172A 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 provided    that  the "interest" of a  female  bhumidhar, sirdar  or  asami, other than a bhumidhar, sirdar  or  asami mentioned  in  s.  171 or s. 172 on her  death  devolves  in accordance  with the order of succession mentioned  in  that section.  The difference in phraseo- 776 logy, in our judgment, does not indicate that the expression "interest"  of a female heir in a holding has  a  restricted connotation.  The two expressions have been indiscriminately 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

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  does not  remain  in  abeyance.   If  it  was  intended  by   the Legislature   that  the  interest  inherited  by  a   female mentioned in S. 1 71 was to be a life-interest, there  would be  some  indication  that  the  reversionary  or  residuary interest  remains  vested in another person  designated  for that  purpose.   But a search in that behalf in the  Act  is fruitless. On a careful review of the provisions of the Act, we are un- able  to  hold that it was intended by  the  Legislature  to enact by implication that the holding inherited by a  female heir  belonging to one of the classes of female heirs in  S. 171 is not held as a life-estate. One  important  legislative development  which  throws  some light  on  the  question  may also  be  noticed.   The  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Bill was published  in 1949.   Before the scheme incorporated in the Bill could  be implemented considerable spade-work had to be done, and  the Bill  could  be brought before the Legislature  after  great delay.    In   the  meanwhile  it   was   apprehended,   the intermediaries may deprive the tenants of the lands in their occupation.   The  Legislature  therefore,  as  an   interim measure, enacted the U.P. Agricultural Tenants  (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 payable  in  respect  of  the  holding,  and  on  making  an application  in  that  behalf to  the  Assistant  Collector. Those  rights were conferred by later amendments  upon  sub- tenants  and unrecorded covenants.  By S. 7 it was  provided that upon the grant of the declaration the applicant  shall, with  effect  from  the date of payment or  deposit  of  the amount  payable,  be  entitled  to  the  privileges  against ejectment in execution of any decree or order of  ejectment. Clause  (c) was added in S. 7 by item 5 of Sch.  IV of  U.P. Act 1 of 1951, and that clause provided               "The  applicant shall, except  as  hereinafter               excepted,    be   entitled,    notwithstanding               anything  contained in the U.P.  Tenancy  Act,               1939, or any contract to bequeath               7 77               by  will or transfer by -way of  sale,  simple               mortgage  or gift his interest in the  holding               or his share therein. Section 340 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act  1  of 1951 provided that "where any  orders  have  been made,   proceedings   taken,   declarations   granted,    or jurisdiction  exercised  under the provisions  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 commencement 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

tenant, a hereditary tenant or a grove-holder and in respect of  a  tenant belonging to certain other  specified  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 1 of 1951, taking away the right to make  a disposition,  inter vivos, which was expressly conferred  by S.  7(c)  of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants  (Acquisition  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 1 of 1951. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.  There will  be no order as to costs. Y.P. Appeal dismissed. 778