GULAB DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have remained unassisted because no one has appeared for the respondents.

(2.) From the judgment under appeal we gather that the High court has proceeded on the basis of the genealogy drawn that Jageshwar Singh had l/4th share in a joint holding. On the death of Jageshwar Singh, his widow Bhagwanti succeeded to his estate under Section 35 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (the Act) which provides for a special rule of succession to a male tenant in contrast to personal law, and under head (b) thereof, the widow comes in the second position after the male lineal descendants in the male line of descent coming in the first. After her death, resort again had to be made to the same provision to discover who next would succeed to the estate and it turned out to be that under head (i) , the unmarried daughter had a right to succeed. On that basis, both the daughters of Jageshwar Singh, namely, Gulab Devi, the appellant herein and Ram Kumari (whose estate is in dispute) succeeded to the property of their father in equal shares. After such succession, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Abolition Act) came into force. While so, on 30/10/1954 Ram Kumari died. Shortly thereafter, consolidation operations commenced in the village. Since Gulab Devi concededly stood married on the late of the death of Ram Kumari, dispute arose between her and the collaterals of Jageshwar Singh relating to succession to the estate of Ram Kumari. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer held in favour of the appellant but the Deputy Director, in revision, and the High court, in affirmance, have held that the marriage of the appellant stood in the way of her succeeding to the estate of her sister. Ram Kumari- We are, thus, required to discover from the interplay of the legal provisions whether the view taken by the Deputy Director (Consolidation and the High court is connect.

(3.) As said before, both the sisters were tenure-holders in their own right to their respective shares on the date when the Abolition Act came into force. It is not disputed that they had received their respective tenancy holdings having succeeded to the estate of their father in accordance with Section 35 of the Tenancy Act. It would be worthy of emphasis that they had not succeeded to the estate under the provisions of the Abolition Act.