JUDGMENT

R.P. Gupta, Member. - Second appeal No 270 of 1979-80 was filed by Sri Ajudhi alias Ayodhya against Sarvasri Ram Bilash, Bateshwar, U.P. State and Gaon Sabha Pilkhana while second appeal no. 3 of 1980-81 was filed by Sarvasri Ram Bilas and Batheshwar against Sri Ajudhi, U.P. State and Gaon Sabha Pikhana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Purshottam son of Khemkaran was sole sirdar of the plots No. 243 and 503 situated at the Pilkhana while he was Sirdar of ? share only in plot No. 521 situated at Pickhana. In this plot Sri Tika Ram son of Mohan had ? share and Sarvasri Sewa Ram, Ajudhi and Puttoo son of Jai Ram had ? share. Sri Purshottam had deposited 20 times of rent on Nov. 25, 1974 to become Bhumidahr. He executed sale deeds on November 27, 1974 in favour of the plaintiff Sri Ajudhi alias Ayodhya. Sri Purshottam died on December 4, 1975. The application for Bhmidahri Sanad regarding plots Nos. 243 and 593 subject matter of Suit No. 30 of 1978 was rejected by Assistant Collector Ist Class on May 23, 1975. However Bhumidhari Sanad was issued regarding ? share of Purshottam in plot No. 521 vide order of Assistant Collector 1st Class dated January 5, 1976, which plot is subject matter of suit No. 31 of 1978. This order of assistant Collector Ist Class became final. As the name of plaintiff could not be mutated in place of deceased Purshottam, the plaintiff Sri Ajudhi alias Ayodhya filed two suits Nos. 30 and 31 of 1978 regarding two different Khatas. Both suits were consolidated and disposed of by the lower court by a common judgment. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds including that no valid sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff as Purshottam died as Sirdar and no Bhumidhari Sanad was issued in his life time. Sale deeds were invalid. The trial court dismissed both the suits on March 23, 1979. Plaintiff filed tow appeals, out of which second appeal No. 435/1 regarding plots No. 243 and 503 subject matter of suit no. 30 of 1978 was dismissed. while appeal No. 436/6 regarding plot No. 521 subject matter of suit No. 31 of 1978, was allowed and the suit was decreed. Against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly dated June 28, 1980, Second appeal No. 270 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff Sri Ayodhya while second appeal no. 3 of 1980-81 was filed by defendants Sarvasri Ram Bilash and Bateshwas.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through record.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Ayodhya argued that the benefit of Section 43 of T.P. Act should be given to the plaintiff regarding the land for which no Bhumidhari Sanad was issued as by operation of law by U.P. Act 8 of 1979 with effect from January 23, 1977 all the Sirdars became Bhumidahrs. Even heirs of Purshottam are bound by the sale deed and as such benefit of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act should be available to the plaintiff even against the heirs of deceased Purshottam.

5. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff but I do not agree with it. Sri Purshottam died before becoming Bhumidhar. Only his successor became Bhumidhar by operation of law. As held in Ram Deo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1968 R.D. 99 by Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra (Now Chief Justice) of Allahabad High Court: "Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act gives expression to the rule of estoppel as well as the doctrine of equity which regards that as done which ought to be done . Equity acts in person. It does not run with the estate. Under this equity, if deceased Sirdar had acquired the Bhumidhari interest in the Sirdari holding subsequently, that interest would go to the feed the estoppel against him; and the transfer executed by him will operate on the subsequently acquired interest. But he person who is affected by the equity as well as the rule of estoppel is the transferor personally. If he does not acquire any interest, Section 43 will not apply and any s