JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order, dated November 12, 1969 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad allowing the appeal against the order, dated December 12, 1968 passed by the Naib-Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, Patti, district Pratapgarh in Case No. 102/1765 under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The respondents have not appeared to contest the appeal in spite of personal service of the summons. 3. Srimati Kutra, respondent No. 1. had moved an application before the Tahsildar, Patti, on September 2, 1969 for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad for her Sirdari holding. Ten times rent was also paid in the sub-treasury on the same date. On September 19, 1968, she applied for refund of the amount and prayed that her application for grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad be rejected. On September 25, 1968, the present appellants filed an objection before the Tahsildar stating that Srimati Kutra had executed a registered sale deed of the land in suit in their favour and had also delivered possession, but now had given the application for refund of the ten times amount and the cancellation of the Bhumidhari Sanad with a view to cause harm to the interest of the vendees. On October 10, 1968, Srimati Kutra filed another application praying that her application dated September 19, 1968 be rejected and the Bhumidhari Sanad be issued. On October 11, 1968, she moved yet another application stating that her application dated October 10, 1968 had been moved under influence and that she wanted the amount of ten times to be refunded to her. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties held that Srimati Kutra had duly executed a sale-deed of the land in suit in favour of the appellants and that she now wants to defraud them with dishonest intention. The trial court ordered that the Bhumidhari Sanad be issued in the name of Srimati Kutra on the basis of her original application dated September 2, 1968. The learned Additional Commissioner has, in appeal, set aside the order of the trial court and ordered that the Bhumidhari Sanad be not issued and the amount of ten times be refunded to Srimati Kutra. The vendees Rajmani and Ram Bux have now come up in second appeal before this Court. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has, in appeal, set aside the order of the trial court and ordered that the Bhumidhari Sanad be not issued and the amount of ten times be refunded to Srimati Kutra. The vendees Rajmani and Ram Bux have now come up in second appeal before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that after the applicant had been allowed to make a deposit of ten times the rent for the Bhumidhari Sanad applied for, the Assistant Collector could not refuse to grant the Sanad, and that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the Sanad except for reasons given under Section 137, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned counsel has further contended that in enquiry also the order of the learned Additional Commissioner was wrong as after depositing the ten times rent and selling of the land to the appellants, the original tenure-holder no Locus Standi to apply for rejection of her application for grant of Bhumidhari sanad and refund of the deposit as she had no rights left in the land. It has been further argued that on the statement of Srimati Kutra herself on oath, it is clear that she made the application for refund of deposit under influence of some persons and that the courts are not to help a person in his fraudulent actions. 6. The question whether a recorded tenure-holder after making an application for grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad and depositing the requisite amount can be permitted to withdraw his application and seek the refund of the deposit has been discussed at length it some of the recent judgments of the Allahabad High Court as well as of this Court. In the famous case of Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari, 1971 R.D. 371 decided by the Full Bench of the High Court, Kirty, J., has observed as follows: "Once a Sirdar qualified to acquire Bhumidhari rights under Section 134 voluntarily elects to acquire such rights makes the necessary application and deposits the requisite sum, it is not open to him to retract Such right to withdraw the application and to seek refund of the deposit can be conceded only on the hypothesis that until accepted it remains an offer only. If any such right is conceded, it will necessarily have to be that the granting of Bhumidhari right to a Sirdar is itself a discretionary act on the part of State Government. To hold so would be to allow infiltration of riders which the legislature has not provided for in the material Sections, viz., Section 124 to 139. Except as provided in Section 137-A for cancellation of certificates mentioned therein, there is no provision for refund of deposit. Further, whatever may the legal position otherwise be, it is not possible to hold that an applicant or his heir is still possessed of any right to withdraw the application and to ask for refund of the deposit even after the Assistant Collector acting under Section 137 (1) has granted a certificate that he is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a declaration that he has acquired Bhumidhari rights." The above view has since been followed by the Board of Revenue also. To my mind, there is no reason at all to take a different view. 7. The learned counsel has also referred to Ramsarup v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P., 1971 R.D. 84 at p. 89, in which a learned Bench of the High Court has observed as follows:- "The Supreme Court held in the case of Jumma Masjid, Mercara that where the transferee knew as a fact that the transferor did not possess the title which he represents he has, then he cannot be said to have acted on it when taking a transfer. But where the transferee does act on the representation there is no reason why he should not have the benefit of the equitable doctrine embodied in Section 43 however fraudulent the act of the transferor might have been, In view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Devia it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have allowed the revision application without recording a clear finding of fact that on he date of the execution of the sale deed the transferee knew as a fact that the transferor was merely a Sirdar, and not a Bhumidhar of the land in question and that he had not in fact been misled by the representation made by the transfer. Unless that finding was recorded, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act would be clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. The view taken by Gangeshwar Prasad, J., in the case of Jagat Narain v. Laljee, AIR 1965 Allahabad 504 and Smt. Annapurna v. Munshi, 1967 A.L.J. 315 is to be that very effect and we respectfully agree with the same." In the present case, the respondent has not shown in the sale-deed whether she was a Sirdar or Bhumidhar of the property being sold. The question whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act will apply or not is, however, not material in the present proceedings inasmuch as the only question being determined here is whether or not the Bhumidhari Sanad was to be issued. 8. In view of the principle laid down in Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari, 1971 R.D. 371 would hold that the respondent having applied for the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanand and having deposited ten times the rent was no longer entitled to withdraw her earlier application and to seek the refund of the amount. The trial court had rightly ordered the issue of the Bhumidhari Sanad in her favour. The learned Additional Commissioner had erred in law in holding that she may be permitted to withdraw her application. 9. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restores the order of the trial court.