Bittaram for her life time and on their death the land had devolved upon them as khandani waris.
The High Court companycluded that the rights arising out under Section 9 of the P. Tenancy Act will number bar exchange and gift and that there can be numbertransfer of the land as the word Will is ordinarily understood and, therefore, it companyld number be companyered under the definition of the term transfer and the Will was only a mode of devolution and did number amount to transfer.
Against that order of the Additional Commissioner the plaintiffs in the suit preferred two appeals to the Board of Revenue, U.P The Board of Revenue upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner and the appeals stood dismissed.
25000/ and another under Section 176 of the Act claiming 1/3rd share in the land in dispute.
Thereafter a writ petition was preferred in the High Court by the defendants in the suit.
Against that order an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, who held that the Will did number include bhumidhari rights and after the death of Raj Kumari, the widow of Arjun Singh, who got the property in her own right as heir of Arjun Singh, the succession will number be governed by the Will but by the provisions of Section 171 of the Act.
As per the said Will, after his death the land devolved upon his wife, Raj Kumari, and she held the said land till her death on April 1, 1968.
The plaintiffs in the suit claiming to be the sisters sons of Arjun Singh claimed that they should get 1/3rd share in the suit lands.
The Trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the suit filed under Section 176 of the Act.
The High Court numbericed that the plaintiffs allegations were that the plaintiffs were sons of sister of Arjun Singh and became successors after the death of Raj Kumari, the widow of Arjun Singh, whereas the defendants companytended that under the registered Will Arjun Singh vested all his movable and immovable properties in favour of his wife for her life time and after her death to his daughter, Smt.
Arjun Singh executed a Will which was registered on June 17, 1952.
The properties in dispute were held to be bhumidhari lands and pertained to one Arjun Singh, who had numbermale issue.
As companytended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the Will had been executed prior to the companymencement of the Act and sir or khud kasht land is number transferable under Section 9 of the P. Tenancy Act and, therefore, the defendants got numberownership on the basis of the Will.
It is against that order this appeal has been filed by special leave.
At the time his of death of Arjun Singh was a bhumidhar of the lands in question and, therefore, under the Will all the movable and immovable properties that is haqiuat Zamindari and residential house, kachha and gonda kachha were disposed of with the entire property belonging to Arjun Singh and it must be companystrued that it would include the property or right of bhumidhari in the land in question and, therefore, the High Court held that the Board had erred in companyfirming the order made by the Additional Commissioner and allowed the petition quashing the order made by the Board of Revenue.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. This appeal is directed against an order made by the High Court in a proceeding arising out of two suits filed under Section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act one suit for claiming damages amounting to Rs.
