JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal against judgment and decree dated 29-2-1980 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dismissing appeal of the plaintiffs confirming judgment and decree dated 28-2-1979, passed by S.D.O. Mat, district Mathura, dismissing suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The suit was filed with the allegations that the tenancy was of Bhuj Bal which was inherited by his widow Smt. Har Pyari, whose daughter is Badan Kunwar. In their favour a surrender deed was executed by Har Pyari on 31-7-1950 as they are her daughter's son and that Har Pyari and Sadan Kunwar both executed another surrender deed on 8-10-1958 in their favour, hence they should be declared to be bhumidhars and sirdars in possession of land in suit whose names have been mutated. 3. The suit was contested by the State alleging that 5.56 acres has been declared excess land under Ceiling Act for which the revenue court has got no jurisdiction; that the surrender deeds were not valid being against provisions of law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It was argued that under Section 172 read with Sections 183 and 184 the devolution starts when the widow remarries, surrenders abandons. The surrender of sirdari and asami rights is governed by Section 183 and 184 of the Act but there is not such provision for surrender by a widow and if she surrenders the inheritance will be governed by Section 171 of the Act and both the surrender deeds accelerated inheritance of the plaintiffs who ought to have been declared as bhumidhar in possession; that no notice was given for the proceeding under Ceiling Act to the plaintiff, hence its decision is not binding on the plaintiff. 6. It was argued in reply that both the courts below have rightly held against the plaintiffs. The surrender by widow and daughter is not permissible and the findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with; that the decision of the Ceiling Act case is binding on the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs who claim from them by their surrender deeds. 7. The argument that decision under Ceiling Act is not binding on the appellant has got no force because it is binding on his predecessor-in-interest who fought up to the High Court, therefore, it is binding on him too. 8. 7. The argument that decision under Ceiling Act is not binding on the appellant has got no force because it is binding on his predecessor-in-interest who fought up to the High Court, therefore, it is binding on him too. 8. It is not disputed that the land in suit was bhumidhari and sirdari both and that Section 172 was applicable to the effect that Smt. Hari Pyari has inherited as widow of Bhujbal and after her death her daughter Badan Kunwar was to inherit and then the inheritance was to go to the plaintiff as daughter's sons of Bhujbal u/s 171 of Act I of 1951. 9. The argument is that by surrender deeds executed by both the widow and daughter of Bhujbal accelerated inheritance of the plaintiffs who were ultimately to inherit u/s 171 of Act I of 1951. This argument has got no force because surrender by a widow or a daughter having inheritance u/s 171 was not like surrender by a Hindu Widow or a female having like interest in the property because in that case surrender in favour of next reversioner was permissible by Hindu Law which is not permitted under Act I of 1951. 10. Surrender by a widow u/s 183 is permissible. It has been held in Dulli v. Smt. Imarti Devi and others, 1966 R.D. 217 a Full Bench case of the Board of Revenue as follows:- "It was contended that the widow should be deemed to have surrendered her rights to succeed in favour of her son when after the death of her husband she did not get her name mutated in revenue papers and allowed the name of her son to be recorded therein. Where the land in question was sirdari the provisions of Section 183 U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act are applicable. Under this section a sirdar may surrender his holding or any part thereof by making an application in writing to the Tahsildar and giving a notice in writing to the Land Management Committee intimating his intention to do so and by giving up possession thereof whether such holding is or is not let. None of the conditions stipulated above have been complied and hence there can be no question of surrender as contemplated by law." 11. None of the conditions stipulated above have been complied and hence there can be no question of surrender as contemplated by law." 11. It was held in Bechan v. Smt. Basanti, 1966 R.D. 190 as follows:- "Under the old Tenancy Act one tenant was permitted to transfer or release his share in the holding in favour of the other tenant, but there was no such provision of release or transfer by one tenure-holder in favour of another in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Surrender by one co-sirdar in favour of another co-sirdar for a consideration in the nature of some money is nothing but a transfer and such a transfer is illegal and confers no right on the transferee co-sirdar". 12. It was held in Rangi Lal v. Bhujharat etc., 1961 A.L.J. (S) 40 as follows:- "C and the defendants were sirdars of the holding in suit. C was succeeded by his widow. She by mean of a registered deed surrendered her share in favour of the plaintiff, her daughter's son. The plaintiff brought suits for a declaration that he is co-sirdar and also for partition of his share. Succession is governed and regulated by the definite provisions made in the Act. The provisions of law cannot be set at nought by the sweet will of a tenure-holder or a co-tenure-holder. Succession in favour of the plaintiff would open under Sec. 171 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act only on the death of the widow or on her surrendering her interest in favour of the Land Management Committee under Sec. 187. In the instant case none of these events have taken place. Thus the plaintiff is not a sirdar and the courts below were wrong in decreeing the suit." 13. This is clear that surrender or sirdari rights in favour of grandsons or son by widow of the deceased tenant or daughter separately or jointly does not accelerate inheritance of the daughter's son of the deceased tenant and surrended of sirdari rights are permitted only in favour of the L.M.C. and in favour of no other person. 14. Bhumidhars were unknown before the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951 and their rights are governed by the provisions of that Act Sections 183 and 184 are the only provisions throughout the statute which confer the rights of surrender but they apply only to sirdars and asamis. 14. Bhumidhars were unknown before the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951 and their rights are governed by the provisions of that Act Sections 183 and 184 are the only provisions throughout the statute which confer the rights of surrender but they apply only to sirdars and asamis. Bhumidhars have not been given right of surrender under Act obviously for the reason that surrender involves a merger of a lower estate into a higher estate, but in the case of bhumidhar who has been granted character of an absolute owner there was owner with right to use bhumihdari land for any purposes whatsoever with a right to transfer it therefore, no justification for providing for surrender of bhumidhari rights by him and its was for that reason provided in Section 199(1) of the Act that Bhumidhar was not liable to be ejected and old Section 152 before Ordinance No. 1 of 1977 provided absolute rights to a bhumidhar now bhumidhar with transferable rights. No provision has been made by the Act for surrendering bhumidhari rights by females covered by Section 172 of the Act, therefore, the words used u/s 172 abandons or surrender are misnomer and such widow is neither entitled to surrender in favour of any heir of the last deceased male tenant provided u/s 171 of the Act for accelerating devolution to him because a female bhumidhar covered by Section 172 is not entitled to surrender either sirdari holding or bhumidhari holding in favour of such person because surrender of sirdari holding as held can be made only in favour of the L.M.C. and surrender of bhumidhari rights (with transferable rights) in favour of such heir is not permitted by law because it will amount to illegal transfer against the provisions of the Act and will be hit by Section 154 of the Act and such other provisions of the Act. 15. Under U.P. Tenancy Act Section 82 of that Act dealt with surrender of tenant holding which was not held to be applicable to a groveholder who had transferable right. It was held in Hanumant Prasad Bhaiya and others v. Ram Manchar, 1951 R.D. 157 as follows:- "Section 82, U.P. Tenancy Act which deals with surrender of a tenant's holding is not applicable to a grove-holder. It was held in Hanumant Prasad Bhaiya and others v. Ram Manchar, 1951 R.D. 157 as follows:- "Section 82, U.P. Tenancy Act which deals with surrender of a tenant's holding is not applicable to a grove-holder. Clause (c) of Section 206 makes the interest of a grove-holder transferable by voluntary transfer and there is nothing in law to prevent one of two joint grove-holders from transferring his shared in the grove to the landholder. Such a transfer being valid the other co-grove-holder cannot be held to become the sole grove-holder as a result of the transfer". 16. In Kalawati v. Consolidation Officer, 1968 R.D. 45 (H.C.). It was held as follows:- "The position under the Tenancy Act was well settled. A person could become a co-tenant by estoppel or acquiescence. Under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, transfer of a sirdari holding was prohibited, vide Section 153. The interest of a sirdar on his executing a transfer became extinguished under Section 190 (cc). Thus there was an absolute prohibition against transfer. Hence a sirdar could not transfer or permit another to be a co-sharer in the sirdari holding directly. He could not do it indirectly by acquiescence or estoppel. But, in relation to bhumidhari holding the position is different. Under Section 154 a bhumidhari holding is transferable, subject to the restrictions mentioned in subsequent sections. The interest of a bhumidhar being transferable a person could be engrafted as a co-tenure-holder in a bhumidhari holding by either an express transfer or by implication, i.e. by acquiescence, estoppel etc." In it, it was not held that a bhumdhari can be transferred by surrender. 17. I am, therefore, of definite view that a female governed by Section 172 of the Act cannot surrender sirdari land or bhumidhari land inherited by her as a widow to the heirs of her deceased male tenant whom he had inherited, entitled to inherit u/s 171 after her death. This appeal has got, therefore, no force and the judgment and decrees passed by both courts below are correct and required no interference and it is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 18. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs although and the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed.