JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1978 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No.8 of 1978 affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1973 passed in Original Suit No.222 of 1970.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Sri Deep Narain was Sir holder of an agricultural land. He died issue-less on 18.8.1950 and, hence, the property was inherited by his wife Mst. Phool Kumari. Though there was a dispute with regard to the date of death of Mst. Phool Kumari, as plaintiffs-respondents claimed that date of death is 12.8.1954 while the defendants-appellants claimed that date of death is after 10.10.1954, but both the courts have given finding of fact that she died on 12.8.1954. The said finding is on the basis of a substitution application filed after the death of Mst. Phool Kumari in an earlier proceeding before the High Court and, hence, is not disputed before this Court during course of arguments by the appellants.

4. Sri Deep Narain and Mst. Phool Kumari died issueless. Sri Deep Narain, late husband of Mst. Phool Kumar had three sisters, namely, Smt. Jai Raji, Smt. Subh Raji and Smt. Hub Raji. Two sons, namely, Shiv Jokhan and Faujdar were born of Smt. Jai Raji and her husband Raj Narain, Ram Samujh and Sumer Singh were born of Mst. Subh Raji and Hakim Singh was born of Mst. Hubraji. All of them were born before the death of Mst. Phool Kumari, i.e., before 12.8.1954. By a sale-deed dated 18.02.1963, Smt. Jai Raji alongwith her husband Raj Narain and Smt. Subhraji sold the property in dispute, on their own behalf and as guardian of their minor sons who were born by that time, which came by way of succession from Mst. Phool Kumari. Minor sons, Shiv Jokhan, Faujdar and Ram Samujh, on becoming major filed a suit before the Civil Court for cancellation of the said sale deed by Original Suit No.222 of 1970. The Civil Court decreed the suit holding that the sale deed was without any authority as none of the vendors namely Smt. Jai Raji, Mst. Subh Raji and Sri Raj Narain ever inherited the property in dispute. The Appellate Court thereafter affirmed the said finding and dismissed the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant in the said background has raised two substantial questions of law;

(i) whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have wrongly applied the law of succession; and

(ii) whether the suit is barred by Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) and it is only the Revenue Court that would have jurisdiction to hear the case.

6. So far as the issue of succession is concerned, there are two parts to it viz. (i) whether Phool Kumari could succeed her husband's Sir rights in an agricultural land and if the answer to the first part is affirmative then (ii) who would succeed Phool Kumari's interest after her death. Now coming to the first part, the death of Late Deep Narain took place on 18.8.1950 i.e. before coming into force of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was given assent by the President on 24.1.1951. Prior to the enactment of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, succession of rights of a Sir holder in an agricultural land was governed by Section 9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939. Section 9(1) of the said Act reads,

"Section 9: Succession to, and transfer of, sir right-

(1) On the death of a sir-holder sir right shall not devolve except in accordance with the personal law to which the deceased was subject."

Thus rights of a Sir holder in an agricultural land shall devolve as per the relevant personal laws at that time. It is not disputed that Deep Narain died issueless and was survived by his widow Phool Kumari. At that time a Hindu widow could succeed her husband's rights in a property as per the Section 3(1) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937