JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The plaintiff-respondent, who is the sister of one Bahadur Ali, claimed a share in his property by right of inheritance. The defendant-appellant is the widow of Bahadur Ali. Among the property claimed is a holding 17 bighas, 6 biswas and 10 dhurs in extent known as the holding of Rang Lal. It is this holding to which alone the present appeal relates. The claim in regard to this holding was resisted on the ground that under section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit a share in it. The court below have disallowed this objection and have decreed the claim. It is alleged that this holding is that of a fixed rate tenant and is heritable in the ordinary way. It appears that the land in question was trans ferred to Bahadur Ali by a deed, dated 15th December, 1899, (registered on the 16th of that month) executed by Muhammad Bakhsh, the zamindar, and the deed provides that the rent of the land should not be enhanced and that Bahadur Ali is to have all the rights of a tenant at fixed rates. A fixed rate tenant is a tenant of the description mentioned in section 8 of the Tenancy Act, that is, a person by whom land in a district or portion of a district which is permanently settled has been held from the time of the permanent settlement at the same rates of rent. It is clear that the zamindar by executing a deed in favour of the tenant could not make him a fixed rate tenant within the meaning of section 8. He might confer on him the right to occupy the land at a fixed rate of rent, but that would only make him an occupancy tenant and not a fixed rate tenant within the meaning of the Act. A tenant at fixed rate referred to in section 20 is a tenant described in section 8, and not a tenant who under a contract with the zamindar holds at a fixed rate of rent. Therefore, section 20 has no application to the tenancy in question, and the devolution of such a tenancy after the death of the tenant must be in accordance with the provisions of section 22. In the list of heirs mentioned in that section the sister finds no place. Therefore, section 20 has no application to the tenancy in question, and the devolution of such a tenancy after the death of the tenant must be in accordance with the provisions of section 22. In the list of heirs mentioned in that section the sister finds no place. Therefore the plaintiff has no right to the property, which is in controversy in this appeal and that property passed to the appellant, the widow of the deceased, there being no lineal descendants in the main line of descent. I may also observe that in the plaint the 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 10 dhurs of land in question are described as an occupancy holding. The court below was, therefore, wrong in decreeing the claim in regard to this property, and this appeal must prevail. I accordingly allow the appeal with costs, and varying the decree of the courts below, dismiss the plaintiff's claim in respect of the 17 bighas, 6 biswas, 10 dhurs, of land, known as the holding of Rang Lal, with proportionate costs in this court and in the court below, The costs of this court will include fees on the higher scale.