JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The dispute related to Khata No. 2 of which one Jiwa Ram was the Sir and Khud Kasht holder. On the death of Jiwa Ram in 1920 the property was inherited by his two sons Chhabi Ram and Ram Chandra. Chhabi Ram died in 1925 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ram Katori. It appears that some dispute arose between Ram Chandra and Smt. Ram Katori which was settled by execution of an agreement dated February 12, 1927. It was later on superseded by a new agreement dated February 10, 1936 under which Smt. Ram Katori was to be paid Rs. 125/- annually in cash and she was given right to cultivate khata No. 2. She had a right to sub-let the land if she so desired. On the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the plots of Khata No. 2 in dispute were recorded as the Sirdari of Smt. Ram Katori. She obtained Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of this Khata and thereafter in July 1954 she executed a sale deed in respect of a part of this Khata in favour of her son-in-law Krishna Murari Lal, the appellant before us. In March 1955 she executed a gift deed in favour of the appellant in respect of the remaining plots of Khata No. 2. The appellant's name came to be recorded as Bhumidhar over tha entire Khata. 2. During consolidation proceedings which commenced in 1965. Ram Chandra filed an objection praying that the name of Krishna Murari Lal be expunged from Khata No. 2 as it had been wrongly recorded in his name. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Ram Chandra holding that the claim of Ram Chandra was barred by time in view of the sale deed and gift deed executed by Smt. Ram Katori which were not got cancelled by Ram Chandra and his right as a tenure holder got extinguished by lapse of time. At the same time he held that possession of Krishna Murari Lal over the land in dispute was permissive hence he could not claim Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The same order was maintained by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). At the same time he held that possession of Krishna Murari Lal over the land in dispute was permissive hence he could not claim Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The same order was maintained by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the revision filed by Ram Chandra holding that Krishna Murari shall be deemed to have interest in the land covered by Khata No. 2 only so long as Smt. Ram Katori was alive. The question of devolution of this property after the death of Smt. Ram Katori was left open. Both the parties filed petitions in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by Ram Chandra and held him entitled to be declared Bhumidhar of the property. The writ petition of Krishna Murari Lal was dismissed on the ground that he did not acquire Sirdari or Bhumidhari rights over the land in question. 3. It may be mentioned that apart from the land comprised in Khata No. 2 half a share in two other Khatas namely Khatas Nos. 24 and 61 was also claimed by Smt. Ram Katori on the ground that there had been a partition between Chhabi Ram and Ram Chandra before Chhabi Ram died. As a widow of Chhabi Ram she claimed half a share in Khatas Nos. 24 and 61. The consolidation authorities as well as the learned single Judge held that the family was joint when Chhabi Ram died and consequently Ram Chandra alone succeeded to the entire property left behind by Jiwa Ram. That decision has become final between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under the family settlement dated February 10, 1936, Smt. Ram Katori was allotted khata No. 2 and on the date of vesting she acquired Sirdari rights over the plots comprised in that Khata and it was asserted that the view taken by the consolidation authorities and the learned single Judge that the land was given to her only by way of maintenance was not borne out by the terms of the deed of agreement. We find no merit in the contention. The document unmistakably indicates that Smt, Ram Katori was granted only a right of maintenance in the family property. We find no merit in the contention. The document unmistakably indicates that Smt, Ram Katori was granted only a right of maintenance in the family property. It was specifically mentioned in the document that she had a right to remain in possession of the property only during her lifetime. Of course she was authorised either to cultivate the land herself or to let it out to another person but nonetheless possession was delivered to her only by way of maintenance. The interpretation on the document put by the consolidation authorities and the learned single Judge appears to be sound. In that view of the matter it cannot possibly be contended that on the date of vesting Smt. Ram Katori acquired Sirdari rights over the land in question. In view of section 11 of the Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 where Sir or Khudkasht has been allotted by the Sir or Khudkasht holder thereof to a person in lieu of maintenance allowance. such person shall be deemed to be the Asami thereof entitled to hold the land for so long as the right of maintenance allowance subsists, Smt. Ram Katori acquired the status of an Asami only. Not being a sirdar, she was not competent to obtain Bhumidhari Sanad and consequently she did not acquire the status of a Bhumidhar. Being an Asami only, she was not competent to transfer the land and her right was confined to continue in possession during her lifetime in lieu of maintenance. 5. Since Smt. Ram Katori acquired the status of an Asami only on the date of vesting, the sale deed and the gift deed executed by her in favour of the appellant were void and conveyed no title to him. It was, however, contended that since the appellant came in possession under these void transactions and continued to be in possession of the land, he acquired Sirdari rights on account of failure of Ram Chandra to file a suit for his eviction. In our opinion the argument is untenable. Section 210 is attracted when the conditions mentioned in section 209 of the Act are satisfied. In our opinion the argument is untenable. Section 210 is attracted when the conditions mentioned in section 209 of the Act are satisfied. In the present case it is true that Krishna Murari Lal came in possession of the land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law yet it cannot be said that he came in possession without the consent of the Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami. Smt. Ram Katori, though only an Asami of the land in question, was competent under the deed of family arrangement to cultivate the land herself or to let it out to some one else. It was with her consent that the appellant came in possession over the land. Relying on the rule laid down in Bharit v. Board of Revenue, U.P. (1973) All LJ 29) it was contended that since the transfer in favour of the appellant was void his possession from the date of transfer was adverse and not permissive on behalf of the transferor. Even if it be assumed that possession of Krishna Murari Lal was adverse, it was so only as against his transferor. It could not be characterised as adverse as against Ram Chandra. Moreover since Smt. Ram Katori had a right to remain in possession over the land during her lifetime, the title that the appellant matured by lapse of time would be coextensive with the right that Smt. Ram Katori had in the land and not beyond it. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Kalipada Chakraborti v. Smt. Palani Bala Devi ( AIR 1953 SC 125 ), the cause of action for a suit to be instituted by a reversioner to recover such property either against an alienee from the female heir or a trespasser who held adversely to her accrues only on the death of the female heir. The right of reversionary heirs is in nature of spes successionis, and as the reversioner do not trace their title through or from the widow, it would be manifestly unjust if they are to lose their rights simply because the widow has suffered the property to be destroyed by the adverse possession of a stranger. A Full Bench of this Court in Bankey Lal v. Raghunath Sahai (AIR 1928 All 561) : (1928-26 All LJ 1049) had laid down the same principle, which has been followed in several other decisions of this Court. A Full Bench of this Court in Bankey Lal v. Raghunath Sahai (AIR 1928 All 561) : (1928-26 All LJ 1049) had laid down the same principle, which has been followed in several other decisions of this Court. No material on the record has been brought to our notice which may even remotely indicate that the transferee ever asserted his independent and adverse right as against Ram Chandra. The mere fact that the name of the appellant was mutated in revenue records would not be indicative of the fact that Krishna Murari Lal asserted his adverse possession as against the interest of Ram Chandra who was the Bhumidhar of the land and entitled to possession after the death of Smt. Ram Katori. The appellant may have come in possession over the land and his name may have been mutated but that could be attributed to the right which Smt. Ram Katori had under the deed of family arrangement that she could let out the land to some one else during her lifetime. 6. It is obvious that when the appellant came in possession over the land. Ram Chandra could not possibly institute a suit for his eviction as that right was not available to him during the lifetime of Smt. Ram Katori. Since Ram Chandra was not competent to maintain a suit for eviction of the appellant, the latter could not prescribe any title against him on account of his failure to institute a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 7. It was next contended that since Ram Chandra accepted compensation on the basis that the land was in possession of Smt. Ram Katori as a Sirdar he was estopped from claiming Bhumidhari rights. This argument is not available to the appellant for the simple reason that as pointed out by the learned Judge, there was no evidence on record that compensation was awarded to Ram Chandra treating the land in dispute as Sirdari of Smt. Ram Katori. 8. It is in evidence that Smt. Ram Katori had to file suits for recovery of her maintenance allowance. She always took the stand that she was in possession of the land in lieu of maintenance. It cannot possibly be disputed that during her lifetime Smt. Ram Katori was entitled to retain possession of the land. 8. It is in evidence that Smt. Ram Katori had to file suits for recovery of her maintenance allowance. She always took the stand that she was in possession of the land in lieu of maintenance. It cannot possibly be disputed that during her lifetime Smt. Ram Katori was entitled to retain possession of the land. That right would be available to the appellant as against Ram Chandra but after the death of Smt. Ram Katori the land would revert back to Ram Chandra. The learned single Judge rightly held that this question should not have been left open by the Deputy Director (Consolidation). 9. No other point has been raised before us. 10. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.