JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 14, 1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. Plaintiff Surya Pal Singh had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming that he was Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. He alleged that the land had come down from the time of his ancestors Ajayab Singh, who had three sons - Rang Bahadur father of the plaintiff. Babool Singh, who died issue-less and Kalka Singh, who died in 1912 leaving a widow, Smt. Audami. Smt. Audani was not entitled to succeed under the then law, and therefore, Babool and Rang Bahadur succeeded. On the death of Babool Singh, Rang Bahadur became to sole tenant. On the death of Smt. Audani in 1958 the property vested in Rang Bahadur absolutely but Smt. Umarai and her two sons applied for mutation. The matter was fought upto the Board of Revenue which decided in favour of defendants. Hence the present regular suit was filed. 3. The case of Smt. Umarai was that on the death of Kalika in 1912 his widow Smt. Audani had succeeded to his share in the property but on her death she herself being the daughter of Kalika, had succeeded to the land in suit. The trial court held that evidence had proved that there had been a partition in the family during the life time of Kalika and that on his death his widow Smt. Audani had succeeded him. The plea that the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 would change the legal status of the various disputants was rejected by that trial court which referred to Section 4 of the Act which specifically included devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings from the purview of the Act. The trial court then concluded that succession to a Hindu female who had inherited the land from her husband before the date of vesting would be governed by Section 172(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Plaintiff Surya Pal was declared to the heir of the last male tenant Kalika in reference to Smt. Umarai. The trial court then concluded that succession to a Hindu female who had inherited the land from her husband before the date of vesting would be governed by Section 172(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Plaintiff Surya Pal was declared to the heir of the last male tenant Kalika in reference to Smt. Umarai. Only in respect of plot No. 2000 of village Chakiya the legal position was held to be otherwise since it was held by the trial court that this was not inherited by Smt. Audani as widow of Kalika. The suit of the plaintiff for this plot was dismissed. 4. It may be stated at the outset that in the present appeal plot No. 200 mentioned above is not the subject matter of dispute. The judgment of the learned trial court had not been attacked in respect of this plot by any party subsequently. 5. Smt. Umrai, defendant filed an appeal against the order of the trial court and this was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. 6. In second appeal before me, learned counsel for Smt. Umrai has pointed out that the plaintiff never made any claim in the original plaint as filed that Smt. Audani had inherited the land in suit from Kalika on his death in 1912. No relief should, therefore, be given to the plaintiff since the essential ingredient to justify his title was absent in the first pleadings. As against this it has to be observed that though this specific plea was missing in the plaintiff the gap was filled up by the appellant herself in the written statement filed by her where she categorically asserted that the land in suit had inherited by Smt. Audani in her own right as widow. The appellant is, therefore, estopped from raising this legal objection against the plaintiff. Learned counsel has cited a large number of ruling in support of the contention that the view of law accepted by the lower courts is erroneous. These are reported in 1968 A.W.R. 655, 1964 A.W.R. 75, 1968 R.D. 293, 1974 A.I.R. S.C. 665, 1968 R.D. 79, 1974 R.D. 141 and 1970 R.D. 2. 7. I have studied all these carefully. They deal generally with important issues that may arise in respect to the privileges that may legally be enjoyed by a widow with limited interest during her life time. 7. I have studied all these carefully. They deal generally with important issues that may arise in respect to the privileges that may legally be enjoyed by a widow with limited interest during her life time. They cannot, therefore, be held to be applicable to the facts of the present case which deals with the question of devolution of agricultural tenancy of the death of a Hindu widow who had inherited as a widow. The only exception would appear to be in the ruling cited last, but even this case does not appear to be on all fours with the present one since the learned Member of the Board of Revenue held therein that the commencement of the tenancy by the mother of the plaintiff had actually been in her independent capacity and not by virtue of inheritance. 8. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a recent ruling of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1973 R.D. 387, which clearly lays down that Section 14 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 would not apply to the devolution of tenancy right under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Beyond this point point this ruling is of no assistance to his case. 9. It would now be appropriate to discuss the judgement to of Board of Revenue in the mutation case between these very parties on the issues as reported on 1966 R.D. 8. This was decided in favour of the present appellant by the Board holding that Smt. Audani suit become full owner of the land in suit on the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, she was absolute owner when she died in 1958. The devolution would thus be governed by Section 174 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 10. With all respect I find myself unable to agree with the view adopted in his ruling. As discussed above, the Hindu Succession Act does not apply at all to the devolution of agricultural tenancy. This devolution is clearly prescribed by Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which provides that where a Bhumidhar inherited an interest in any holding before the date of vesting as a widow etc. and she was on the date immediately before the date of vesting an intermediary of the land or fixed rate tenant or an ex-proprietary tenant etc. and she was on the date immediately before the date of vesting an intermediary of the land or fixed rate tenant or an ex-proprietary tenant etc. and was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to a life estate only in the holding, the holding will devolve on her death upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant, such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of the Act. The same section provides specifically that if she was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to the holding absolutely the holding will devolve in accordance with Section 174 of the Act. 11. The law in the matter is, therefore, clear and no guidance need be sought from any ruling. Smt. Audani had inherited her interest in the holding as a widow before the date of vesting and was entitled to a life estate only and, therefore, on her death the holding would devolve upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant in accordance with Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and not Section 174 of the Act. 12. The appeal stands dismissed.