JUDGMENT S.N. Katju, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 Kadhora is the Bhumidhar and Sirdar of the plots in dispute and in the alternative the plaintiff No. 1 or any of the two plaintiffs may be declared as a co-tenant of the plots in dispute along with the defendant. The plaintiffs also prayed or possession in case it was found that the defendant was in possession. 2. One Tantiya died in 929 leaving his widow Ujiyari. He had two daughters - the defendant Smt. Gauriya and Smt. Matti, plaintiff No. 2. The latter was alleged to be the second wife of Kashi Prasad. The plaintiff Kadhora claimed to be the son of Kashi Prasad and Matti, plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff's claim was resisted by the defendant Gauriya. She alleged that she had been made a co-tenant by her father Tantiya and that Kadhora was not the son of Matti and, therefore, he was not the heir of Tantiya. The learned Munsif referred the issue with regard to Sirdari rights to the revenue court. It found that Kadhora was not the son of Matti. The learned Munsif while considering the rights of the parties with regard to bhumidhari land held that Kadhora was the son of Matti. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs claim with regard to sirdari rights but decreed it in respect of the bhumidhari plots. Both the parties preferred appeals to the lower appellate court which dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant Gauriya and allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff Kadhora and decreed the suit in its entirety. The defendant has now come in appeal to this Court. 3. The lower appellate court has found that Kadhora is the son of Smt. Matti. This is a finding of fact which is binding on me. The lower appellate court expressed the view that Gauriya had not been made a co-tenant by Tantiya but it found that she had been made a co-tenant by Ujiyari. It, however, expressed the view that Ujiyari's tenure was for life only and, therefore, the cotenancy of Gauriya could not enure beyond Ujiyari's life time. Ujiyari died on 6-10-1953. The lower appellate court seems to have ignored the effect of the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act). It, however, expressed the view that Ujiyari's tenure was for life only and, therefore, the cotenancy of Gauriya could not enure beyond Ujiyari's life time. Ujiyari died on 6-10-1953. The lower appellate court seems to have ignored the effect of the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act). Admittedly Gauriya was a cotenant with Smt. Ujiyari when the Act came into force on the 1st of July, 1952. She at once became a co-sirdar and a co -bhumidhar of the plots in dispute along with Smt. Ujiyari. The question whether Ujiyari had a limbed right in the plots in dispute becomes immaterial. It was observed by a Full Bench of this Court in Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigunath, 1964 A. L. J. 197. "None of the provisions (of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act) is inconsistent with bhumidhari rights vesting absolutely in a Hindu widow. Merely because the line of succession laid down in the Act reminds one of the line of succession to Hindu widows it cannot be said that a female bhumidhar has only a life interest like a Hindu widow . . . ." 4. There is no escape from the conclusion that Gauriya being a co-tenant along with Smt. Ujiyari of the plots in dispute became a Sirdar and bhumidhar of the said plots after the coming into force of the Act. 5. The next question for consideration is whether after the death of Ujiyari in October, 1953, her interest in the plots in dispute devolved on the plaintiff Kadhora who is her daughter's son or it devolved on her daughter Gauriya. Admittedly Gauriya is a childless widow. Mati being a married daughter was at the time not an heir at all of her father Tantiya. Learned counsel contended that Gauriya being a widow stands in the position of an "unmarried daughter" and, therefore, she was entitled to succeed in preference to the plaintiff Kadhora. Sec. 172 of the Act provides for succession where the last holder is a person who has inherited the plots as a widow. Sec. 172(1) (b) says that in such a case the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 171) of the last male bhumidhar, sirdar or Asami. Sec. 172(1) (b) says that in such a case the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 171) of the last male bhumidhar, sirdar or Asami. Sec. 172 of the Act provides for the general order of succession. An unmarried daughter comes after the father. She is followed by the brother, unmarried sister and daughter's son. It may be mentioned that a married daughter was introduced in the order of succession after the unmarried sister by the Amending Act XX of 1954. The controversy, therefore, revolves on the question whether Gauriya could be treated as an `unmarried daughter'. It may be emphasised that the order of succession as laid down under Sec. 171 of the Act applies to succession to a person who was a bhumidhar, sirdar or Asami of the land. He might be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or a person professing any other religion. The provisions of the Section, therefore, cannot be construed with reference to the Hindu Law or the Mohammedan Law. The conception of a Hindu marriage cannot, therefore, be brought in while determining the meaning of the expression "unmarried daughter." The type of marriage may be sacramental or may arise from a contract. If a married woman loses her husband then she is called a widow. The expression widow is used in Sec. 171 of the Act in the sense of the wife of a deceased heir who is herself made heir. The expression `unmarried' in Cl. (ee) refers to a daughter. Could it be said that if the Legislature impended to make a married daughter who has lost her husband a heir it could have expressly used the expression "widowed daughter" and, therefore, the expression "unmarried daughter" could not include a widowed daughter. It was contended that the expression unmarried in Cl. (ee) has been used in a wider sense and it includes a daughter who is not enjoying a married state. That may be due to the fact that she has lost her husband. It may also be due to the fact that the marriage tie has been dissolved or there has been a separation between the husband and the wife and she no longer lives with the husband. That may be due to the fact that she has lost her husband. It may also be due to the fact that the marriage tie has been dissolved or there has been a separation between the husband and the wife and she no longer lives with the husband. In all such cases the women would come within the expression "unmarried." If the meaning of the expression "unmarried" had to be determined in accordance with the notions of the Hindu Law as governing sacramental marriages it could be said that a married daughter is a person who is not married at all. Once the daughter is married she could not be described as an unmarried daughter. But since the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act apply to persons professing different fath the expression `marriage' cannot be given the restricted meaning according to the notions of the Hindu Law. Marriage ties may be of a less permanent nature. There are communities in India where according to custom the marriage tie could be easily dissolved by mutual agreement or by the approval of the Biradri Panchayat. A Motah marriage among the Shias may hold good only for a limited period. Under such circumstances when the marriage having been once performed does not hold good at the material time when the succession opens then a person could not be described as a "married person." The meaning of the expression "unmarried daughter" under the Workmen's Compensation Act was considered by Jailal, J. in Mst. Moti Bai v. Agent N. W. Railway, 1932 Lahore page 1, who held that "a widowed sister who has not re-married does not fall within the definition of "dependant" in the Workman's Compensation Act." The aforesaid case was considered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Soleman Bibi v. E. I. Railway where the question was whether an "unmarried daughter" as mentioned in Sec. 2(1) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, includes a "widowed daughter." Amir Ali, J. considered the meaning of the expression "unmarried". He referred to several English decisions and also referred to the meaning of the word as given in Murray's Dictionary, Johnson's Dictionary and also in Stroudes Judicial Dictionary. He observed: - "With regard to the dictionary meaning of the word I am however of opinion that the view taken by the learned Commissioner is not correct. He referred to several English decisions and also referred to the meaning of the word as given in Murray's Dictionary, Johnson's Dictionary and also in Stroudes Judicial Dictionary. He observed: - "With regard to the dictionary meaning of the word I am however of opinion that the view taken by the learned Commissioner is not correct. In all the general dictionaries to which I have referred - Murray's Dictionary, Johnson's Dictionary and some of the later ones - the meaning given is as "not married" or "single" and another meaning given is as "never having been married." On the other hand in Strouded's Judicial Dictionary, which of course is based upon legal decisions, there is a definite division into primary and secondary meanings - the primary meaning being given as "never having been married." 6. I have, therefore, to consider the question whether the expression "unmarried daughter" in Sec. 171 (ee) of the Act has to be given its primary meaning or it should be given a wider meaning to include the secondary meaning as well. If the first and the narrower meaning is given to the expression "unmarried daughter" then it would mean that all daughters who might have lived in matrimony for a very brief interval or who had lost their husbands soon after marriage or had been separated from their husbands after marriage or had been divorced would be excluded from being persons falling within the ambit of the expression "unmarried daughter." If a woman does not marry at all she is undoubtedly unmarried. If she marries then she would come within the category of a married person. If the husband dies she would become a widow. But besides these three clear cut stages there may be some other categories which could be applicable to a woman. Webster's Dictionary gives the meaning of the word "unmarried" as "divorced." That indicates that a marriage when dissolved ceases to be marriage and, secondly, a woman whose marriage ties are dissolved would revert back to the status of an unmarried person. If a wider meaning is given to the expression "unmarried" then it could also include a widow who does not continue to remain in a state of marriage. In my view the expression "unmarried daughter" as used in clause (ee) includes all persons who do not remain in a state of marriage. If a wider meaning is given to the expression "unmarried" then it could also include a widow who does not continue to remain in a state of marriage. In my view the expression "unmarried daughter" as used in clause (ee) includes all persons who do not remain in a state of marriage. An unmarried daughter could, therefore, be a person who is a widow and ceases to remain in a state of marriage. 7. I, therefore, hold that Smt. Gauriya who is the widowed daughter of Tantiya was his heir within the meaning of Sec. 171 (ee) of the Act and the plaintiff Kadhora could not succeed to the interest of Tantiya in the plots in dispute in preference to Smt. Gauriya. 8. I, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and dismiss the suit. The appeal is allow ed. Considering the circumstance of the case and the relationship of the parties. I direct that the parties will bear their own costs through out.