H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, at the instance of three sons of Bhagirath who was Defendant in a suit Under Sec. 176 of the UP ZA and LR Act. Respondent No. 4 Smt. Dhandei filed the suit claiming partition of certain Bhumidhari holding in village Titari Buzurg and one Sirdari holding ii village Mahadia, claiming half share ii those properties. Plaintiffs' case was that the Defendant and her late husband namely Ramji were co -tenure holder of the two holdings. After the death o Ramji Das, she stepped into his shoes and became continuer holder with the Defendant. Thus, she had half share in the property and was entitled to get it partitioned. Bhagirath pleaded than the property of village Tetari Buzurg was Sir of Smt. Maharani, who in the year 1894 gifted it to her daughter Smt. Ingurdani alias Karamdani. Smt. Ingurdani had two sons viz. Bhagirath and Plaintiff husband Ramji. Ramji predeceased Smt. Ingurdani who died in the year 1951, before the date of vesting. The holding in village Tetari Buzurg was Ingurdani's Stridhan property and after her death it devolved upon her son Bhagirath. It was claimed that the Plaintiff who was the widow of a predeceased son did not acquire any interest in the Stridhan property of Smt. Ingurdani
(2.) As regards the property in village Mahadia, it was admitted that Ramji and Bhagirath were co -tenants. It was said that Ramji surrendered his interest in that holding with the result Bhagirath became the sole tenure holder. Plaintiff who is the widow of Ramji did not have any interest in the property and could no -claim its partition.
(3.) So far as property situated in village Mehdia was concerned, the revenue court disbelieved the theory of surrender set up by the Defendant. Ii held that the Plaintiff was entitled to half share in that property and passed decree accordingly. The Defendant submitted to this part of the decree which has become final. So far as the property in village Tetari Buzurg is concerned the lower appellate court found that there was nothing on the record to substantiate the case of the Defendant that this was the same property which was covered by the gift executed by Smt. Maharani in favour of Ingurdani. However, the plot stood recorded in the name of Smt. Ingurdani and thereafter since 1362 fasli they stood recorded in the names of Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to get her half share partitioned. The Board of Revenue after stating respective cases of the parties came to the conclusion that succession in this case was governed by Sec. 3(1) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 and not by the principles of general Hindu Law. It therefore, held that the Plaintiff was entitled to succeed to half share in the property left by Smt. Ingurdani and that the suit had been properly decreed by the courts below.;