JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree of Sri O.P. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, dated February 3, 1971. Allowing the appeal No. 115 of 1968 and setting aside the Judgment and decree dated March 26, 1968 of the Judicial Officer (Revenue) in a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The appellant Smt. Katori had died the suit for the division of holding with the allegations that her brother Nanda and the defendant Sumer were the co-tenure holder of Khata No. 93 in village Tikra and that Nanda having died without any issues she had succeeded him as his sister and sole heir. Sumer contested the suit by alleging that the plaintiff has no locus standi and has no share in the disputed land and Nanda had executed a will in favour of Brij Lal, Gajraj, Mukhiya and Ram Das which was registered and these persons were now co-tenure-holders of the land Brij Lal and others were added as parties on their request. The trial court decreed the suit of Smt. Katori for half share but the lower appellate has set aside the order of the trial court and held that Smt. Katori had no share in the land. Smt. Katori had now come up in second appeal. 4. The grounds taken in the appeal are firstly, that the learned Additional Commissioner has not correctly appreciated the law and his Judgment is bad in the eye of law; secondly that the learned Additional Commissioner has misconstrued the provisions of Section 134 and 1 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, thirdly that the deceased Nanda remained Sirdar and therefore no Bhumidhari certificate could be issued in his name; fourthly that the alleged will is invalid in law and does not confer any right in favour of respondent; fifthly; that the lower appellate court has discarded important evidence for decision of the relevant issues; and lastly that on the face of it the respondents have committed fraud and have obtained the alleged will and the Sanad. 5. 5. The trial court has recorded the finding that Smt. Katori is the real sister of Nanda deceased who was the co-tenure holder of the land and this finding has not been reversed by the lower appellate court. The contesting defendants had, however, filed a copy of the will dated January 3, 1967 said to have been executed by the deceased, Nanda. Now the trial court has recorded that Nanda died on January 10, 1967 and thus the will in question is genuine but according to the trial court since the will was in respect of Sirdari land, as rights would accrue to the defendant respondents on the basis of this will. The position that Sirdari rights cannot be bequeathed by a will, is correct in law but the learned Additional Commissioner has held that Nanda had applied for issue of a Bhumidhari Sanad in his favour for his one half share in the land in dispute on December 31, 1966, ten times land revenue was deposited on January 3, 1967 and the Tahsildar ordered for the issue of Bhumidhari Sanad in the name of Nanda on January 3, 1967. Nanda died in January 10, 1967 and the Sanad was only issued on January 11, 1967. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1968 R.D. 99 and 1970 R.D. 386 for propounding the view that Bhumidhari rights could accrue to Nanda only when the Sanad was issued in his name on January 11, 1967. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited Bansidhar v. Dhirajadhari 1971 R.D. 371 in which a learned Full Bench of the High Court has held that the change of status of a Sirdar into a Bhumidhar occurs when the Assistant Collector makes the judicial grant; the event of the ministerial grant or issuance is immaterial. This Full Bench ruling has subsequently been followed in all decisions of the Board of Revenue. Thus the legal position would be that Nanda deceased had become a Bhumidhar of the land in suit on January 3, 1967 irrespective of the fact that the Sanad was actually issued on January 11, 1967 that is after his death. A Bhumidhar has the right to bequeath his interest. Thus, the will executed by the deceased Nanda, in favour of the defendants in valid in law. A Bhumidhar has the right to bequeath his interest. Thus, the will executed by the deceased Nanda, in favour of the defendants in valid in law. As regards the question of fraud neither of the courts below have found any fraud or manipulation and there is no reason at all for this court to take a different view. It may be mentioned that the defendant respondents in whose favour Nanda had executed a will are his nephews and according to the will they have been living with Nanda and have been looking after him and taking his due care and therefore, it is by no means unreasonable that he thought it fit to execute the will in favour of his nephews ignoring his married sister, Smt. Katori who has been apparently living with her husband in village Singhpur of district Etah. Nanda and the defendant-respondents on the other hand, lived in village Tikra in district Budaun. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the lower appellate court has failed to consider any important piece of evidence. The Judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner is also quite sound in law. 6. I find no force in this second appeal and hereby dismiss it.