- (1.) ONE Ram Bali held the plots in dispute as his sir and khudkaeht. He died, leaving a son Lal Man and a widow Smt. Tirthraii. On his death, his son Lal Man succeeded to the plots. Lal Man died in 1943 leaving a widow Smt. Dharampatti and a daugh ter Smt. Urmila. Smt. Urmila had two sons Uma Shanker and Rama Shanker, who are the appellants before us. Smt. Dharampatti died before the date of vesting (30th June. 1952). Smt. Urmila (Lai Man's daughter) died in 1961. It appears that Smt Tirathraji. the widow of Ram Bali also died in 1967. Before her death, she had transferred a major portion of the land in dispute in favour of Vidya Dhar and her own daughters, who are the respondents.
(2.) DURING consolidation proceed ings, the appellants claimed to have succeeded to the holding as the daugh ter's son of Lal Man. This claim was contested by Smt. Tirathraji the mo ther of Lal Man. The claim of the ap pellants was repelled by the Deputy Di rector of Consolidation, who held that Smt. Tirathraji was a preferential heir to Lal Man than the appellants who were daughter's sons. The appellants in stituted a writ petition, but the same failed. Hence the present appeal. The Question before us is whether on the death of Lal Man's daughter Smt. Ur mila. the property, which had by then become a bhumidhari holding. would devolve on Lal Man's mother. Smt. Tirathraji, or on the daughter's sons (the appellants). Section 171 of the U. P. Za-mindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act lays down the order of succession In the case of a woman holding an in terest inherited as a widow, mother, daughter. etc. Under sub- section (1), the heir of such a female bhumidhar has to be found out in accordance with Section 171 or 174. depending upon the status of the deceased being either a limited or an absolute owner, in accord ance with her personal law. In Munna Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolida tion. (1969 All LJ 764). a Division Bench of this Court held that the rele vant date for determining the capacity of the bhumidhar as a life estate holder or as an absolute owner is the date immediately preceding the date of vest ing. The same view was taken by ano ther Division Bench in Smt. Tilari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. (1971 RD 232) (All). Thus the decisive factor is the status_ of the female bhumidhar on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. On that day. under Hindu Law. Smt. Urmila held the plots as a limited owner because she had inherited the holding as a daughter in 1943. There fore, in accordance with sub-clause (i) of Section 172 (2) (a), the nearest surviving heir under Section 171 will be the preferential heir. Under clause (b) of Section 171. a widowed mother is a preferential heir to a daughter's son, who comes under clause (h). The De puty Director was justified in holding that Smt. Tirathraji was the preferen tial heir when Smt. Urmila died in 1961. The appellants had no valid claim to the plots.
(3.) FOP the appellants, it was argued that Smt. Urmila had prior to her death become an absolute owner of the holding, under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Section 4 (2) of that Act provides:- "For the removal of doubts It is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for the preven tion of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceiling or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings.";