JUDGMENT

FAZL ALI, J.:—This appeal by special leave involves a pure question of law regarding inheritance to the property of one Karua. Briefly put, the case of appellant was that the disputed Khata was recorded in the name of Karua the son of Madhua who died leaving behind his widow Kasturi and his son Karua. He had two brothers Khushi Ram and Lekhraj who claimed to be the next reversioners. It is obvious that on the death of Madhua, Kasturi as the widow got half share in the property and the other half went to Karua. The dispute seems to have been arisen on the death of Karua when two rival claims were put forward, one by kasturi who contended that she was entitled to inherit as mother of Karua, whereas Khushi Ram averred that as Kasturi had married Lekhraj she should be divested of her interest and excluded from inheritance as a result of which the property would pass on to Khushi Ram and Lekhraj in equal shares as next reversioners. The appellant also denied the fact that Kasturi had remarried Lekhraj. The first Court of the Consolidation Officer negatived the claim of Kasturi and directed mutation to be made in the name of Khushi Ram under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The present appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Etah Camp, at Aligarh against the decision of the Consolidation Officer who reversed the finding of the Consolidation Officer and held that as the re-marriage of Kasturi with Lekhraj had not been proved the appellant Kasturi was entitled to be recorded in the revenue papers. Against this decision there was a revision by Khushi Ram before Deputy Director of Consolidation who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that there was abundant evidence to prove that Kasturi had remained Lekhraj and, therefore, in law would be excluded from inheriting the property and was not entitled to be mutated in respect of the Khata in question. The appellant thereupon unsuccessfully filed a writ petition before the High Court and hence this appeal before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued this appeal on the basis of the facts proved in this case. He has not, and could not assail the findings of fact arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was the last revisional court in this case. Before proceeding to determine the point in controversy, it may be necessary to state the admitted facts. In the first place it is not disputed that the claim of Sasturi was made after the death of Karua. By that time Kasturi as the widow of Madhua had already inherited half the share. So the dispute centered round the share of Karua alone. The finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Kasturi had remarried Lekhraj cannot be disturbed. In fact there was some controversy regarding the dates of the death of Madhua or the re-marriage of Kasturi with Lekhraj. The position, however, seems to have been set at rest by the evidence of the respondent himself who deposed that Madhua died about 10 years from the date of deposition which would take us to the year 1960. The witness further admits that kasturi remarried Lekhraj 2 or 3 years after Madhuas death which would take us to 1963. The respondent further deposes that Karua died 11/2 years from the date of deposition (sic0 which fixes the death of Karua in the year 1970. These dates are important to show that inheritance of both Karua and Kasturi would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act which had come into force even during the lifetime of Madhua.

3. We may now examine the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant. Counsel submitted that assuming that Kasturi had remarried Lekhraj she had acquired an absolute interest in the property and no question of divestment of the property could arise in view of the provision of the Hindu Succession Act. Secondly, it was argued