JUDGMENT R.S. Varma, Member - The most important question to be decided in this second appeal is: If a woman inherited an interest in any holding, before the date of vesting, in her capacity as a (a) widow, or (b) widow of a male lineal descendant in the male her interest in such holding be extinguished on her remarriage according to Section 172(2)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act? The second question is: If the interest of such woman does not become extinct upon her remarriage in all events, but is dependent upon certain circumstances, what are the circumstances in which her interest is extinguished on her remarriage and that are the circumstances when her interest is not so extinguished? 2. A concise narration of the facts of the case will give the back drop from which the questions aforesaid have stemmed. The plots in suit belonged to Ujagir, who was brother of the plaintiff and was husband of the defendant Smt. Khaimana. Ujagir died before the date of vesting and his interest was inherited by his widow Smt. Khaimana, who became Sirdar of the land in suit after the date of vesting. There is no evidence about the class of tenancy inherited by her according to U.P. Tenancy Act before the date of vesting. Consolidating proceedings intervened and she was held to be a Sirdar of the land in suit. During those proceedings she was mentioned as widow of Ujagir. Then four years before the institution of the present suit she, according to the allegations of the plaintiffs remarried. The plaintiffs kept quiet for four years. Ten days before the filing of the suit they moved a mutation application on October 6, 1969 and on November 12, 1969 the plaintiffs withdrew the mutation application which was dismissed on November 29, 1969. The plaintiffs did not file any suit for declaration of their rights they outright filed a suit for adjudication. The defendant, Smt. Khaimana, contested the suit on various grounds. The plaintiff suit was decreed by Shri Om Prakash Jauhari, learned Assistant Collector Ist Class, Hardoi, on August 17, 1973. Against that the defendant Smt. Khaimana filed an appeal. Shri G.S. Seth, learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 3. The defendant, Smt. Khaimana, contested the suit on various grounds. The plaintiff suit was decreed by Shri Om Prakash Jauhari, learned Assistant Collector Ist Class, Hardoi, on August 17, 1973. Against that the defendant Smt. Khaimana filed an appeal. Shri G.S. Seth, learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the interest of a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant, mother or father's mother will be extinguished on her remarriage only when she did not inherit her interest before the date of vesting either as (a) an intermediary or (b) as a fixed rate tenant, or (c) an ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh or (d) an occupancy tenant in Avadh or (e) as a tenant on special terms in Avadh. In other words if she was an intermediary fixed rate tenant, ex-proprietary tenant, occupancy tenant in Avadh or a tenant on special terms in Avadh before the date of vesting her rights would not be extinguished on her remarriage. In that event, her rights would be extinguished only if she dies, abandons or surrenders. The learned Additional Commissioner held that as the plaintiffs had not alleged or provided that Smt. Khaimana defendant had inherited the land as a widow before the date of vesting otherwise than as an intermediary, fixed rate tenant, ex-proprietary tenant, occupancy, tenant in Avadh or as a tenant special terms in Avadh, they were not entitled to inherit the land in suit on the remarriage of Smt. Khaimana. 4. I am in full agreement with the reasoning and the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner. Section 172(2) (b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is as follows:- "Where a Bhumidhar or Sirdar who has before the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any holding as a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, mother, daughter, father's mother, son's daughter, sister or half sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased dies, abandons or surrenders, and in the case of a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, mother, father's mother marries, and such Bhumidhar on the date immediately before the said date, held the holding otherwise than as an intermediary or tenant referred to in Cl. (a) (an intermediary, fixed rate tenant, ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh, an occupancy tenant in Avadh or as a tenant on special terms in Avadh) 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 tenant. (Emphasis supplied) 5. The section is a lengthy one and the language is some what involved. Due to this or due to some unanalysed prejudice most of us generally presume that a widow forfeits her tenancy rights in the holding of her husband as soon as she remarries. But this is not at all true. If such woman was, before the date of vesting, an intermediary, or fixed rate tenant, or an ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh or an occupancy tenancy tenant in Avadh or a tenant on special terms in Avadh, her rights in the holding of her deceased, husband will not be extinguished on her remarriage; but will be extinguished only in the event of her death, or abandonment or surrender of the holding. It is only when such women was not an (a) intermediary or (b) a fixed rate tenant or (c) an ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh, or (d) an occupancy tenant in Avadh or (e) tenant on special terms in Avadh, before the date of vesting that her interest in the holding of her husband would be extinguished on her remarriage. 6. It does not required any elaborate reasoning to arrive at the above conclusion. If Section 172, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is read carefully its intention becomes crystal-clear. 7. Now we are able to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this judgement. The answer is as follows: If a woman inherited an interest in any holding, before the date of vesting, in her capacity as a widow, or widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, or mother or father's mother her interest will not be extinguished on her re-marriage if she was intermediary, fixed rate tenant, an ex-proprietary tenant in Avadha, an occupancy tenant in Avadh or a tenant in Avadha or a tenant on special terms in Avadha. 8. 8. If such a woman was not before the date of vesting, an intermediary, or a fixed rate tenant, or an ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh, or an occupancy tenant in Avadha, or a tenant on special terms in Avadh, her interest in the holding of her husband will be extinguished the moment she remarries. 9. The learned counsel for the the appellants has argued, that though the plaintiffs had not specified in the plaint or in the evidence as to what type of tenant Smt. Khaimana defendant was before the date of vesting, it will be presumed by the mere fact of their claiming inheritance on the remarriage of Smt. Khaimana that they had impliedly pleaded that Smt. Khaimana was not an intermediary, fixed rate tenant, ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh, occupancy tenant in Avadh or a tenant on special terms in Avadh. Such presumption cannot be made in favour of the plaintiffs. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case upto the hilt. If the plaintiff alleges that the right of the recorded tenant was extinguished on her remarriage, the plaintiff must prove that the facts were such that on her remarriage her rights were bound to be extinguished. The plaintiffs have failed to prove those facts. 10. Remarriage in itself does not carry with it the legal incident of forfeiture of the rights of the widow. The person, who alleges extinction of rights on remarriage, has to prove it. To prove it, the plaintiff has to allege and prove that such woman (widow) mother or father's mother of widow of male lineal descendant was not an intermediary or fixed rate tenant, or an ex-proprietary tenant in Avadh or an occupancy tenant in Avadh or a tenant on special terms in Avadh. If he fails to allege and prove this fact, the plaintiff cannot succeed. 11. As the plaintiff have failed to prove the conditions in which the rights of the defendant Smt. Khaimana could be extinguished, the plaintiffs cannot succeed in the suit. 12. The judgement of the learned Additional Commissioner is perfectly right. There is no force in this appeal. 13. The appeal is dismissed with costs and Rs. 50/- as counsel's fees.