JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, CJ. 1. (FOR self and FOR Yashoda Nandan, J.) :- Ram Pratap had three sons-Bhagwati, Bhagwan and Mahadeo. Hansnath son of Bhagwati is respondent no. 2 in the present appeal. The two appellants are daughters of Bhagwan. 2. THE principal question in controversy was whether on the death of Ram Pratap his interest devolved on Bhagwan or Bhagwati. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that both Bhagwan and Mahadeo died during the life time of Ram Pratap. In other words, at the time of death of Ram Pratap in 1947 only one of his three sons, namely Bhagwati was alive. The Deputy Director Consolidation consequently held that the interest of Ram Pratap in the holdings devolved on Bhagwati and the appellants had no share or interest in it. He also found that Ram Rati widow of Bhagwan was in possession as guardian of the minor Hansnath. Soon after the death of Ram Pratap, Bhagwati also appears to have died. In view of these findings, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the objection of respondent no. 2 and expunged the names of the appellants from the holding in dispute. Aggrieved, the appellants came to this Court. A learned Single Judge held that the findings under challenge are on the questions of facts and they do not show any manifest error of law. He dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal. 3. ON the findings of fact, it is apparent that Bhagwan died on August 30, 1946. Ram Pratap died either in January or July, 1947 while Bhagwati died in October, 1947. 4. MR. V. K. S. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellants, raised a fresh point in this appeal. Since it was a pure question of law and did not require investigation, we adjourned the hearing of the ease to enable MR. Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents, to study the point and reply to it. According to Mr. Chaudhari, on the death of Bhagwan in 1946, his interest in this joint family holding devolved on his widow Smt. Ram Pati under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. The holding in dispute was sir of the zamindars. It was governed by personal law and so the Hindu Women's Rights to Prorerty Act, 1937 became applicable to it. Smt. Ram Pati died in 1958. She held the holding at that time as a Bhumidhar. The holding in dispute was sir of the zamindars. It was governed by personal law and so the Hindu Women's Rights to Prorerty Act, 1937 became applicable to it. Smt. Ram Pati died in 1958. She held the holding at that time as a Bhumidhar. Under Section 172 (2) (a), U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, her interest would devolve on her daughters. 5. THE Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, by Section 3, provides for devolution of property of a Hindu dying intestate in the case of undivided interest in joint Hindu property or separate property. Sub-section (2) provides for devolution of separate property. It provides that on the death of a Hindu, his widow shall be entitled to his interest, provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a son's son if there is surviving a son or son's son of such predeceased son. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 provides that when a Hindu dies, having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had. Subsection (3) provides that any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Women's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. 6. IF this was the separate holding of the various members of the family, Section 3 (1) Would apply and on the death of Bhagwan, his widow was entitled to his property because he did not leave any son behind him. If, however, the holding belonged to the Hindu joint family, sub-section (2) will apply and in that case on the death of Bhagwan, his interest shall devolve on his widow. In either case, Smt. Ram Pati, the widow of Bhagwan, was entitled to inherit the interest of Bhagwan in the holding. She, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 3, shall get the Hindu Women's estate by inheritance. Smt. Ram Pati died in 1958. On July 1, 1952, the Zamindari Abolition Act had come into force. Section 172 thereof governs succession in the case of a woman's holding. She, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 3, shall get the Hindu Women's estate by inheritance. Smt. Ram Pati died in 1958. On July 1, 1952, the Zamindari Abolition Act had come into force. Section 172 thereof governs succession in the case of a woman's holding. Smt. Ram Pati had inherited an interest in the holding as a widow in 1946 that is prior to date of vesting. She became a female bhumidhar. Section 172 (2) provides :- "where a bhumidhar or sirdar who has before the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any holding as a widow... (a) dies, and such bhumidhar or sirdar was on the date immediately before the said date an intermediary of the land............... (i) She was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to a life estate only in the holding, the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male intermediary or tenant aforesaid, and if, (ii) She was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to the holding absolutely, the holding shall devolve in accordance with the table mentioned in Section 174." 7. HERE, Smt. Ram Pati was a bhumidhar who had inherited an interest as a widow prior to the date of vesting. Prior to the date of vesting, she held it as an intermediary. Therefore, the various ingredients of sub-section (2) (a) of Section 172 are satisfied. 8. WHEN she died in 1958, the next heir shall have to be found in accordance with clause (i) of sub-section (2) (a) of Section 172 because even on the date of vesting she held a widow's estate. This is clearly provided in the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. To this extent, learned counsel for both the parties, are agreed and there is no controversy. The controversy is as to the significance of the phrase "last male intermediary" occurring in the clause "shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male intermediary." 9. THE nearest surviving heir has, of course, to be ascertained but the question is who was the last male intermediary qua Ram Pati's interest. Under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, a widow inherits from her husband. THE nearest surviving heir has, of course, to be ascertained but the question is who was the last male intermediary qua Ram Pati's interest. Under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, a widow inherits from her husband. Even if her husband predeceased fictionally, it will be deemed that he had an interest which, inspite of the law of coparcenary, shall devolve on his widow. Qua Smt. Ram Pati, the last male owner was her husband Bhagwan; and not either Ram Pratap who was her father-in-law or even Bhagwati who was her husband's brother. She did not inherit any interest which was owned either by Ram Pratap or by Bhagwati. Under the Act of 1937, she inherited the interest which vested in her husband by reason of his being a son. We are therefore, of the opinion that the phrase "last male intermediary" occurring in sub-clause (i) of sub-section (2) (a) of Section 172 has to be found out from the point of view of the interest which is open for succession. Smt. Ram Pati's interest opened on her death and it is the last male intermediary qua her interest which is alone material. As already seen, Bhagwan was the last male intermediary qua her interest in the holding. The question is who is the nearest surviving heir of Bhagwan in accordance with Section 171. Clause (g) of Section 171 provides for married daughters while clause (i) provides for brother's son. It is evident that married daughters have preference. The appellants are the married daughters of Bhagwan. They are hence entitled to succeed to the holding on the death of Smt. Ram Pati in 1958. 10. IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the Deputy Director is set aside. The case is sent back to the Deputy Director to frame the shares of the parties afresh in accordance with the findings and observations made by us above. In view of the fact that the point of law on which the appeal succeeds, was taken up at a very late stage, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.