M. C. Desai, J. - (1.) We agree with the view taken by the Board of Revenue that the transfer by the female Bhumidhar of her Bhumidhari rights was valid. Even though she had acquired the Bhumidhari rights under Section 134 of the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act on the basis of having inherited hereditary rights as a Hindu widow under the U.P. Tenancy Act, there was no restriction on her powers to transfer them. On account of the mere fact that on her death the devolution would be in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 172 and 171 it cannot be said that her powers to transfer Bhumidhari rights are restricted in any manner. The matter is not to be judged from the point of view of Hindu Law, even if the Bhumidhari rights arose out of hereditary rights inherited by the Bhumidhar as a Hindu widow, the question of her powers to transfer them is governed by the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and not by Hindu Law. There is no provision at all restricting her powers to transfer them. What Sec. 172-A says is that when she dies then for the purposes of devolution the land shall be deemed to be an accession to the holding of the last male holder thereof. We have to make two oliservations with regard to this provision.
(2.) The first is that only when the question arises on whom the Bhumidhari land devolves then one has to refer to the provisions of Secs. 172 and 171. The question of devolution arises only when the Bhumidhar dies and not during her life time. It follows that during her life time there does not arise any question, in answering which one would be required to refer to the provisions of Secs. 171 and 172. In other words, during her life time she is not to be treated as a Hindu widow. Had the legislature intended to restrict her powers of transfer it would have laid down a clear rule instead of, or in addition to, saying that on her death the devolution will be governed by the provisions contained in Secs. 172 and 171. The provision laying down a rule of devolution of property on death can hardly be said to be a provision restricting the power of transfer during life time. Therefore, the meaning of Sec. 172-A is that the devolution of whatever Bhumidhari rights are left on the death of a female Bhumidliar will be governed by the provisions of Secs. 172 and 171. If she has transferred her Bhumidhari rights there would arise no question of devolution at all.
(3.) The other is that the only provision in Section 172 which refers to the holding of the last "male holder" is one in respect of inheritance and not in respect of transfer during life time. Thus only for the purpose of devolution on the death of the Bhumidhar will the land be deemed to be an accession to the holding of the last male holder and not earlier during her life time.;