JUDGMENT Roshan Lal, Member - This is second appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.9.1975 passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, affirming the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Hardoi, dated 21.6.73 passed in a case under section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the land in dispute belonged to Smt. Radhi who was the bhumidhar and sirdar, that Smt. Kadhi was the wife of the plaintiff, who died in the year 1968 without leaving any son or daughter and as such he being her husband succeeded to the land in dispute as bhumidhar and sirdar being the nearest heir under law : that the application for mutation was dismissed on 11.8.69 on the objection of defendant no. 1. Sobaran Singh in whose favour the mutation was ordered and therefore necessity arose for filing a suit. Defendant no. 2 Smt. Maharaji who was impleaded as a party by the plaintiff being the sister of Smt. Radhi deceased filed her written statement on the grounds that the land in dispute originally belonged to herself, Smt. Sukh Rani and Smt. Radhi deceased as daughters of said Madho. After the death of Smt. Sukh Rani and Smt. Radhi issue-less she has inherited the land in dispute as bhumidhar and sirdar. Defendant no. 1 Sobaran Singh contested the suit on the grounds that Smt. Radhi had not acquired the land in dispute as bhumidhari and sirdari in her own rights but Madho Singh had executed a registered gift deed on 12.12.1936 in favour of Smt. Sukh Rani and Smt. Radhi and on the basis of said gift deed both got this land. According to the terms of the said gift deed the land in dispute was to go to the defendant no. 1 after the death of Smt. Sukhrani and Radhi without leaving any male issue. The defendant no. 1 also denied that defendant no. 3 is the daughter of Madho deceased on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the land in dispute originally belonged to Madho Singh the learned Additional Commissioner upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Hence this appeal. 3. Hence this appeal. 3. I have gone through the record of the case and have also heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. The main grounds for appeal are that Smt. Kadhi was the only owner through the gift deed executed in her favour and all rights of transfer after the enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The courts below have erred in law that the gift deed was executed in the year 1936 and Smt. Radhi came in possession and remained in continuous possession throughout her life and she became bhumidhar of certain plots and sirdar of certain other plots and on her death her husband appellant being the nearest heir and legal representative was entitled for the relief claimed by him; that the plea of identifibiality was never raised by the defendant respondents in their written statements and no issue was framed to that effect. Therefore the courts below have erred in law in making out a new case in favour of defendant respondents in their written statements and no issue was framed to that effect. Therefore the courts below have erred in law in making out a new case in favour of the defendant-respondents for dismissing the plaintiff's suit and the courts below have erred in law that the terms of the gift deed for the preferences and has proved under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the same points which are contained in the memorandum of appeal. The facts of the case are not disputed. The only question to be decided is that whether on the death of Smt. Radhi the land would be inherited by the husband or would revert to the defendant-respondents. The learned lower court discussed this point at length and also the legal position, it has been concluded that it the claim of the plaintiff was correct, the three daughters of Madho inherited the land but from the documentary evidence it is fully proved that the land came in the name of only two daughters i.e., Smt. Sukhrani and Smt. Radhi and Smt. Maharaji did not get any land. Obviously the two daughters got the land through the gift deed otherwise there was no reason to exclude the third. Obviously the two daughters got the land through the gift deed otherwise there was no reason to exclude the third. It there-tore agreed with the finding of the trial court that Smt. Radhi got the land through the gift deed and did not inherit as heir. Regarding the rights of Smt. Radhi on the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he has held that the terms of the deed would have preference and the trial court was quite correct in holding that the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in 110 way nullify the effect of the deed. Madho was quite competent to execute the deed in question laying down the conditions thereon. I do not find the conditions contained in the deed or any thing illegal or in contravention of the provisions of section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore after the death of Smt. Radhi the respondent, Sobaran Singh is entitled to have the land in dispute. The lower appellate court has held that the sirdar of the land would not be governed by the gift deed because it can not be the subject matter of the gift and the same will be the subject to the succession according to law and the plaintiff was admittedly the preferential heir being husband would be entitled to get it. He has further argued that there was nothing on record on the basis of which the sirdari portion could be separated from the bhumidhari portion nor there is any documentary or oral evidence in this regard. He also gave a thorough consideration to the question ascertaining the act by sending a commission to make inspection and came to the conclusion that even commission would be useless in this matter because the plaintiff' is not in possession and therefore there is no basis to demarcate sirdari land from the bhumidhari. He also gave a thorough consideration to the question ascertaining the act by sending a commission to make inspection and came to the conclusion that even commission would be useless in this matter because the plaintiff' is not in possession and therefore there is no basis to demarcate sirdari land from the bhumidhari. The terms of section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act run as follows:- "Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation, absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the leassor or those claiming under him." Provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a woman (not being a Hindu, Mohammadan or Buddhist) so that she shall not have power during her marriage, to transfer or change the same or her beneficial interest therein. This does not in any way help the plaintiff" and the relevant portion of the Transfer of Property Act have also been considered in the judgment and order of the learned Additional Commissioner. In view of the above, I find that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the lower appellate court and the judgment and order does not warrant any interference." 6. The second appeal has no force and is therefore accordingly dismissed.