JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - One Chiragan Khan was the Sirdar of the plots in dispute. On January 5, 1959 he deposited ten times the rent along with a application for grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad. The Bhumidhari was actually issued to him on February 7, 1959, but prior to the issuance of the Bhumidhari Sanad, namely, on January 7, 1959 Chiragan Khan executed a deed of gift of the plots in dispute in favour of the appellant who was the daughter's husband of the doner. By the deed of gift Chiragan Khan purported to give a number of Bhumidhari plots to the appellant. On the basis of the registered deed of gift the appellant's name was mutated in the revenue papers. In the basic year the appellant was recorded as Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. The respondent, who is the son, and Smt. Rafun Bibi, who is the wife of a predeceased son of Chiragan Khan, filed objections challenging the validity of the deed of gift. The Consolidation Officer upheld the objection. He found that on the date of execution of the deed of gift Chiragan Khan was Sirdar of the plots in dispute and Sirdari rights were not transferable. Consequently, no interest passed to the appellant by virtue of the deed of gift. The appellant's name was directed to be expunged and that of the respondents substituted in the revenue records. This view was affirmed by the higher consolidation authorities. Aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned single Judge held that the amendments made to Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not retrospective. The grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad takes effect from the date of the order for it and not from the date of the deposit of the ten times the rent. In this view the writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 2. We have perused the deed of gift. By that document Chiragan Khan purported to execute a gift of some of his Bhumidhari plots. Admittedly, he had already deposited 10 times the rent in order to obtain Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of these plots. It is obvious that he professed himself to be the Bhumidhar of the disputed plots and in that capacity he purported to execute the deed of gift. Admittedly, he had already deposited 10 times the rent in order to obtain Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of these plots. It is obvious that he professed himself to be the Bhumidhar of the disputed plots and in that capacity he purported to execute the deed of gift. It is apparent that the deed of gift was not of Sirdari rights in these plots. On its face and according to its tenor; the document purported to transfer Bhumidhari interest in these plots. There is no evidence, nor is there any finding, that Chhagan Khan or the appellant or both of them were in fact aware that Chiragan Khan was only a Sirdar and that they deliberately gave the transfer the garb of gift of Bhumidhari rights. In this situation the decision of this Court in Desh Raj and another v. Lal Sahai Singh and others, 1973 A.L.J. 168. becomes applicable. In that case it was held that Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prohibits the transfer of Sirdari rights. Bhumidhari rights are transferable. In a case where the land is sold on the professed representation that the seller has Bhumidhari rights such a sale cannot be held to be of Sirdari rights. In such a case Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act becomes applicable and if the transfer professed to sell Bhumidhari rights the transfer fastens on such subsequently acquired transferable interest. Accordingly, it must be held that the appellant did in law become Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute and his name was rightly entered in the basic year and ought not to have been expunged. In the result the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petitions are allowed and the orders of the Consolidation authorities are quashed. It is directed that the name of the appellant may be maintained in the consolidation as well as in the revenue records as Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. As no one appears to oppose the appeals there will be no order as to costs.