JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Durga Prasad to challenge the orders of the Joint Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) whereby Nahar Singh and Raghubeer Singh, respondents 3 and 4, were held to be the heirs of Smt. Bhuri. 2. The jurisdiction of the High Court hearing a petition under Article 226 is a limited one. It can interfere with a finding of fact only if there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. None of the findings of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities can be said to be erroneous, and hence they cannot be challenged in the present proceeding. 3. The facts material for the decision of the case are that on 14-6-1935 Smt. Bhuri, widow of Satyanarain Singh, purchased 19 Bighas land from Ram Saran and others. The vendors owned 61 Bighas 10 Biswas 15 Biswansi land but had transferred specified plots which were their 'Sir' and 'Khudkasht'. The transaction was not a 'Betnami' one and Smt. Bhuri was the absolute proprietor of the property. The plots purchased were, however, recorded in the village records in the name of her husband, Satyanarain Singh, as hereditary tenant. 4. On 1-9-1943 Satyanarain Singh purchased 8 Bighas land of the same Mohal from Ram Singh and Dharajit and entered possession of plots No. 323-B and 323-A as 'Khudkasht' holder. Subsequently, on 2-81944 he sold these plots to his wife Smt. Bhuri. Even after the sale Satyanarain Singh continued to be recorded as Khudkasht holder of these plots but, in the eye of law, he would be mere ex-proprietary tenant. 5. Satyanarain Singh died on 19-2-1948 and his tenancy rights were inherited by his widow, Smt. Bhuri. Later on, she applied to the Tehsildar for her name being recorded over all the plots as Khudkasht holder. The application was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter she was recorded as Khudkasht holder. 6. On 5-12-1955 Smt. Bhuri is said to have executed two gift-deeds in favour of respondents 3 and 4, but none of them have been held to be valid. This finding is proper. Smt. Bhuri died on 9-4-1956. 7. On her death respondents 3 and 4 were recorded as Bhumidhars. 6. On 5-12-1955 Smt. Bhuri is said to have executed two gift-deeds in favour of respondents 3 and 4, but none of them have been held to be valid. This finding is proper. Smt. Bhuri died on 9-4-1956. 7. On her death respondents 3 and 4 were recorded as Bhumidhars. The petitioner, Durga Prasad then instituted suit No. 379 of 1956 for possession and for cancellation of the gift-deeds, but it could not be finally decided. Consolidation operations started while the second appeal was pending before the High Court. The petitioner thereupon preferred an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer but the order was reversed in appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Joint Director of Consolidation did not interfere in revision. 8. Smt. Bhuri was originally the proprietor of 9 Bighas land and thereafter also of the land which was purchased by Satyanarain Singh and she was the absolute owner of both the sets of the properties. However, when she inherited the two holdings on the death of her husband, she had, to start with a limited interest, in view of the fact that on her death the holding would have devolved on the next heir of her husband and not on her heirs. This naturally leads us to the consideration of the question whether the tenancy rights inherited by Smt. Bhuri extinguished and she became the Khudkasht holder. Another point to be seen shall be whether Smt. Bhuri can be deemed to be the proprietor of the plots of which she became the hereditary tenant or an ex-proprietary tenant or she was only one of the proprietors of the two holdings. 9. My attention has been drawn to three decisions of this Court: Ram Raj Singh v. Rajendra Singh, A.I.R. 1943 Alld. 251 and Jokhu Mat v. Gopi Mal, A.I.R. 1952 Alld. 251 relate to 'Sir' and `Khudkasht' plots and pertain to transfers made by a co-sharer having a fractional share in the Khewat. Transfer of 'Sir' and Khudkasht plots by the proprietor has been held to be valid. The third case which refers to merger is Niadar v. Mohammad Ahmads, XIII (1929) Revenue Decisions 334, but it is one in which the proprietors had a fractional share and none of them could have transferred a specified plot. Transfer of 'Sir' and Khudkasht plots by the proprietor has been held to be valid. The third case which refers to merger is Niadar v. Mohammad Ahmads, XIII (1929) Revenue Decisions 334, but it is one in which the proprietors had a fractional share and none of them could have transferred a specified plot. What was transferred was a fractional share in the proprietorship of the village. In the instant case, however, the proprietors had transferred specified plots and this is why the share is entered in the Khewat on the basis of the areas of the plots purchased and not in fraction. 10. In Pattidari or Bhaiya Chari villages proprietors are generally actual cultivators and whenever they transfer or purchase land, they sell or purchase specified plots invariably in possession of the vendor. Consequently, where specified plots are transferred and no objection is raised by the other co-sharers the transferee becomes the proprietor of those plots and if he is a tenant thereof, the tenancy is extinguished and on merger he becomes a Khudkasht holder. (See Section 46 of the U. P. Tenancy Act) . 11. The petitioner is not challenging the rights of the respondents as ex-intermediary. He is the brother of Satyanarain Singh and is laying a claim to the tenancy plots through him. 12. I am thus of opinion that in villages where specified plots are transferred the purchaser becomes the proprietor of those plots, and not of an undivided share in the whole of the Mohal. Smt. Bhuri and Satyanarain Singh had purchased specified plots and consequently, at the time of the death of Satyanarain Singh Smt. Bhuri was the full proprietor of the disputed plots and she was the absolute owner thereof. She had at the same time, a limited interest in the tenancy land record in the name of Satyanarain Singh. On his death she became a hereditary tenant of one set of the plots and ex-proprietary tenant of another. 13. This raises the question whether there can be a merger as contemplated by Section 46 of the U. P. Tenancy Act of a limited inferior right in an unlimited superior right. 14. On his death she became a hereditary tenant of one set of the plots and ex-proprietary tenant of another. 13. This raises the question whether there can be a merger as contemplated by Section 46 of the U. P. Tenancy Act of a limited inferior right in an unlimited superior right. 14. On reading Sections 36, 37 and 46 of the U. P. Tenancy Act together it must be held that the legislature was conscious of the fact that a widow or daughter may inherit a limited interest from her husband or father, or she may have an unlimited interest in her holding. This is why one rule of inheritance was laid down in Section 36 and a different one in Section 37. Even then Section 46 was worded generally, nor was any restriction imposed in the case of widow inheriting the holding from her husband. A general provision must be given a wide interpretation and must include all the cases irrespective of whether interest of the tenure holder is or is not a limited one. 15. In other words, Smt. Bhuri was the proprietor of the plots in dispute and she was, on the death of her husband also a-hereditary or ex-proprietary tenant thereof. It is true that as a tenure-holder she had a limited interest therein but she had after all acquired the tenancy holdings. In the circumstances, the tenancy extinguished and as the plots were under the cultivation of Smt. Bhuri she became the Khudkasht holder thereof. On the abolition of the Zamindari she became the Bhumidhar and her interest as Bhumidhar shall be unlimited. The effect of Section 46 can be summarised by laying down that in the instant case Smt. Bhuri surrendered her tenancy rights and when she continued to cultivate the land she became the Khudkasht holder with rights similar to those which she possessed as proprietor. When Smt. Bhuri cannot be deemed to have inherited the Bhumidhari holding from her husband, the succession shall be governed by Section 174 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the holding shall devolve on her brothers and not on the husband's brother. The consolidation authorities have thus taken a correct view of the law. 16. The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.