JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, M. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner under section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a case for mutation recommending that the lower court's order be set aside and the application for mutation be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the recommendation of the Commissioner is erroneous and should not be accepted in view of the rulings reported in 1964 A.L.J. page 197 wherein it has been held that a female, who has inherited the holding before the enforcement of the Z.A. and L.R. Act from the last male tenant, has become Bhumidhar and can transfer such holding and the transfer is valid even after her death. He also referred to 1967 R.D. page 199 and 229 in support of his contention. He further referred to 1977 R.D. page 211 and submitted that in mutation cases, only prima facie title has to be seen and if it so exists mutation may be ordered. He, therefore, argued that the recommendation of the Commissioner should not be accepted and the order of the trial court be maintained. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist supported the recommendation and submitted that the entire question is inter-linked with the rights in an earlier gift deed executed by the same donor which was challenged in the civil court and it was held that the gift deed is valid till the widow survives as her interest was limited. The donor is still alive and no application was ever made for mutation of their names on the basis of the earlier gift deed. The opposite parties have now come up for mutation only on the basis of the second gift deed executed in 1970. Since the possession and title over the land in suit was already transferred in 1964 itself, the donor was not left with any title or possession to enable her to transfer the property again in 1970, as it was merely a waste paper. Her further submitted that on the basis of the second gift deed in 1970 the application for mutation had been filed again. The earlier mutation application had been rejected on the trial court on February 14, 1971. Her further submitted that on the basis of the second gift deed in 1970 the application for mutation had been filed again. The earlier mutation application had been rejected on the trial court on February 14, 1971. He argued that the second mutation application moved by the opposite parties was not maintainable and the order of the courts below contrary to it are illegal and without jurisdiction. He referred to 1934 R.D. 711, 1974 A.L.J. 47 and unreported cases of the Board decided by Sri Ashwini Kumar, Member (Ref. No. 18 L.R. 1976/77/Nainital, dated September 19, 1977) and submitted that remedy lay by moving an application for restoration under Section 201 of the L.R. Act and the second mutation application is not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party in reply submitted that in all these cases cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist the first mutation application has been filed by the transferee himself. But in the present case the earlier mutation application was moved by another person. Further in the objection filed by the revisionist, the revisionist himself stated that the earlier application for mutation was not moved by the donees themselves and that it was not prescribed by them also. The application is signed by one Pan Singh who has no authority to move such application. The stand taken in the trial court was that Pan Singh was the guardian of the donees. This claim was rejected by the trial court and it was held that the donees being major can move the mutation application. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that this is the first mutation application. 5. I have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. The main stand taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist, who has supported the recommendation of the Commissioner, is that a second mutation application moved by the opposite party was not maintainable and that real remedy lay for restoration under section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He has support his contention by referred to in para 3 above. This contention of the learned counsel, if correct will have to be up held. However the examination of the record shows that the earlier mutation application was not moved by the transferee or by the donees. He has support his contention by referred to in para 3 above. This contention of the learned counsel, if correct will have to be up held. However the examination of the record shows that the earlier mutation application was not moved by the transferee or by the donees. The revisionist him self had admitted that the earlier application had not been moved by the donees. The application is signed by one Pan Singh and the trial court took the view that Pan Singh had no status to move the application and he was not a guardian of the donees. Hence the contention of the learned counsel that it was first mutation application is correct. Therefore, there is little substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist. A female, who has inherited the holding before the enforcement of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, becomes a Bhumidhar in her own rights and can transfer the holding which is valid even after her death. This view is supported by the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party. Accordingly I am unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Commissioner and order that the orders of the Commissioner be set aside and those of the trial court be maintained. The reference is discharged accordingly.