ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. A. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite parties. A concurrent finding of fact was recorded by opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 3 holding that the transferor Srimati Chandraji, widow of Bhagauti was Sirdar at the time when she is alleged to have executed sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968 in favour of the petitioners in respect of land of Khata No. 18. Petitioners alleged that she died after the execution of the sale-deed and although no Sanad Bhumidhari was issued in the name of Srimati Chandraji but order for grant of Sanad was passed by the Assistant Collector in her favour in respect of land of Khata No. 18, which she had sold to the petitioners through registered sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968. Petitioners have not filed copy of the alleged order for grant of Sanad Bhumidhari passed by the Assistant Collector, which is said to have been passed in her lifetime. A concurrent finding has been recorded that no order for grant of Sanad was passed during her lifetime and as such, she could not dispose of land of Khata No. 18 being Sirdar. In this view of the matter, the opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 3 have committed no error in refusing mutation in the name of the petitioners on the land of Khata No. 18. Srimati Chandraji had also sold, through the said sale-deed, her share in Khata No. 3, of which she was Bhumidhar and as such the sale-deed, was held to be valid so far as her share in Khata No. 3 was concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since Chandraji had deposited ten times rent on 20th June, 1968 and thereafter on the same day she had executed sale-deed professing to be Bhumidhar of the land in question of Khata No. 18 and as such the sale-deed could not be treated to be invalid although no order for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad was passed in her favour. I am unable to agree with this contention. In Ramdeo v. Dy. Director of Consolidation U. P., Lucknow (1968 Rev Dec 99) ; ( AIR 1968 All 262 ) Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra (as he then was) held (at pp. I am unable to agree with this contention. In Ramdeo v. Dy. Director of Consolidation U. P., Lucknow (1968 Rev Dec 99) ; ( AIR 1968 All 262 ) Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra (as he then was) held (at pp. 264, 65) : - "Where the transaction for the acquisition of the certificate was not completed in deceased Sirdar's lifetime and in his favour, on the date of his death he remained as Sirdar. Since he did not receive the certificate, he did not acquire the Bhumidhari interest in the holding at all. Retrospective operation of the certificate will not confer any interest in the holding on deceased Sirdar but on the person in whose favour the certificate was granted. The effect of the Bhumidhari certificate can commence only after the formality of its grant has been completed. The fact of its completion cannot be influenced by the retrospectivity of its operation after it has been issued. In the instant case the Sirdar deposited ten times of the rent and made an application for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad on a certain date, and on the same date executed a deed of sale of a share in the Sirdari holding but died subsequently and the Bhumidhari Sanad was in due course issued in the name of his son. The deceased Sirdar did not become a Bhumidhar and hence did not obtain a transferable interest in the holding and the sale-deed executed by him could not validly vest any title in the transferee." 3. In the present case, the sale-deed which was executed by Srimati Chandraji in respect of land of Khata No. 18 was invalid as on the date when the sale-deed was executed she was Sirdar and also on the date when she died she was merely a Sirdar as no order for grant of Sanad was passed during her lifetime. 4. Merely recital in the sale-deed to the effect that she is Bhumidhar of the land sold would not make the sale-deed valid in respect of that land which could not otherwise be transferred by her as she was merely a Sirdar of it as no order for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad was passed in her favour. 4. Merely recital in the sale-deed to the effect that she is Bhumidhar of the land sold would not make the sale-deed valid in respect of that land which could not otherwise be transferred by her as she was merely a Sirdar of it as no order for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad was passed in her favour. The petitioners-transferees acted with great haste in getting sale-deed executed in their favour without waiting for an order to be passed in her favour for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of land in question. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had acted bona fide believing the reoresentation made by Srimati Chandraji to be correct that she was Bhumidhar and was possessed of transferable interest in the land sold to them. Apart from it, no order for the grant of Bhumidhari sanad was even passed in favour of Srimati Chandraji. The sale-deed, therefore, could not be treated to be valid merely on the basis of recital in the deed to the effect that she was Bhumidhar of the land of Khata No. 18 sold by her, when in fact she was merely a Sirdar as no order for grant of Sanad Bhumidhari was passed in her favour during her lifetime. The provisions of S. 43 of Transfer of Property Act could not, therefore, be brought in their aid by the petitioners. The provisions of S. 43 of T. P. Act could apply if Smt. Chandraji would have acquired Bhumidhari rights subsequently during her lifetime. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that every tenant who was Sirdar under S. 19 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act become Bhumidhar with transferable right on the enforcement of L). P. Act No. VIII of 1977. He further contended that the provisions of S. 43 of the T. P. Act would, thus, be applicable and the petitioners would acquire interest in the land in dispute on the basis of sale-deed because of statutory conferment of Bhumidhari rights in the heirs of Srimati Chandraji. P. Act No. VIII of 1977. He further contended that the provisions of S. 43 of the T. P. Act would, thus, be applicable and the petitioners would acquire interest in the land in dispute on the basis of sale-deed because of statutory conferment of Bhumidhari rights in the heirs of Srimati Chandraji. I am unable to agree with this contention as well In Ramdeo's case ( AIR 1968 All 262 ) (Supra) the effect of provision of S. 43 of T. P. Act was considered and it was heid (at p. 264) : - "S. 43 of the T. P. Act gives expression to the rule of estoppel as well as the doctrine of equity which regards that as done which ought to be done. Equity acts in persona. It does not run with the estate. Under this equity, if deceased Sirdar had acquired the Bhumidhari interest in the Sirdar holding subsequently that interest would go to feed the estoppel against him and the transfer executed by him will operate on the subsequently acquired interest. But the person who is affected by the equity as well as the rule of estoppel is the transferor personally. If he does not acquire any interest S. 43 will not apply and the subsequent acquisition of the Bhumidhari interest by another person, even though he be the successor of the original Sirdar, will not enable the transferee to reap any benefit of the acquisition." 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the statutory conferment of Bhumidhari right upon the heir of deceased Sirdar will not ensure to the benefit of the transferee and the provision of S. 43 of the T. P. Act would not be attracted to such a case. Thus, the petitioners would not be entitled to get any interest in the land in dispute of Khata No. 18 on the basis of aforesaid sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968 and the claim of the petitioners has been rightly rejected in respect of said land. 7. The impugned orders passed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 do not suffer from any error of fact, law or jurisdiction. The Writ Petition, thus being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.