JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - One Bissu was a co-sharer in the holding in dispute. He was murdered by his wife, Smt. Deoki. The other co-tenure-holders remained in possession of the entire holding. Smt. Deoki was convicted for the murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. After serving imprisonment for 10 years, she was released. She then claimed her share in the holding. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted her claim. He repelled the objection of the co-tenure-holders that being the murderer of her husband, Bissu, she could not be an heir to him. This view of law has been challenged in the present writ petition.

2. It is true that the principles of Hindu Law cannot be imported into the special rights created by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In Mahendra Singh v. Attar Singh, 1967 R.D. 191, it was held that principles of coparcenery property are not applicable to bhumidhari rights, Similarly, in Dulli v. lmerti Devi, 1966 A.L.J. (Rev.) 29 (F.B.) it was held that the principle of Hindu Law making a posthumous son an heir was,not applicable to succession which was governed by the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. In Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigu Nath, A.I.R. 1964