Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute in this case relates to plots Nos. 638, 641 and 642 of village Khera, district Gonda. The petitioner by virtue of her purchase from one Bhagirath under a sale deed dated February 2, 1960 claimed herself to be the bhumidhar of these plots and filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as against opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 who claimed themselves to be sirdar's of the said plots. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection. The petitioner went in appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeal. Opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 then went in revision which resulted in the impugned order dated March 26, 1965 a certified copy of which is annexure 2. The Deputy Director who decided the revision held that the sale deed on which the petitioner claimed her title, could not be given effect to for the simple reason that the executant of the sale deed viz., Bhagirath acquired bhumidhari rights under a sanad granted subsequent to the date of the sale deed. It appears from a perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director that there were other grounds also taken by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 in support of their revision, but having found the above ground in favour of opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5, the Deputy Director allowed the revision without deciding the other grounds. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner prefers this petition praying for the quashing of the revisional order annexure 2 on the ground that in giving his decision the Deputy Director failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(2.) The petition is opposed by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It may be that under Section 137 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1962, bhumidhari rights accrued only on the grant of the sanad and not with effect from the date of the deposit of the required amount as they do under the amended Section 137. Still, the fact remains that if a vendor obtains subsequently bhumidhari rights in the vended property, he is bound to convey the same on the principle incorporated in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, popularly known as feeding the grant. As such, it is obvious that the Deputy Director fell in error in refusing to give effect to the sale merely on the ground that on the date of the sale deed Bhagirath, the executant thereof, did not appear to have bhumidhari rights, though it is not in dispute at all that he had deposited the required amount earlier than the date of the sale deed and obtained bhumidhari sanad subsequent to the date of the sale deed. In the circumstances, the petition has got to be allowed.
(3.) The petition is allowed and the impugned order annexure 2 is quashed with the direction that revision shall be disposed of afresh on merits after deciding the other grounds raised by opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their costs.;