ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional authority D/- 18-1-1980 (Annex. `6' attached with the writ petition.) 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners were recorded over the disputed Khatas Nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the basic year and that the contesting opposite party Smt. Resham Devi had claimed ? share in the disputed Khatas. The petitioners had contested her claim on the allegation that she being widow in the family had already entered into a compromise and had agreed that she would be entitled to get Rs. 450/- annually as maintenance and that she would have no interest in the zamindari property, hence her claim in the disputed khatas to the extent of ? share is wholly unfounded and that her claim should be negatived. 3. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment D/- 24-9-1977 accepted the claim of the petitioners and negatived the claim of the opposite party 2 in the present writ petition. In appeal also the opp. party 2 did not succeed, but in revision petition her claim has been recognised by the revisional authority through its judgment D/- 18-1-1980 against which the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that on the findings recorded by the revisional authority the opp. party 2 would at best be entitled to the amount at the rate of Rs. 450/- annually, but she cannot claim any interest in the disputed khatas. If the petitioners do not comply with the agreement, the agreement would not become ineffective, rather the contesting opp. party would be entitled to enforce the agreement due to the breach of the contract. 450/- annually, but she cannot claim any interest in the disputed khatas. If the petitioners do not comply with the agreement, the agreement would not become ineffective, rather the contesting opp. party would be entitled to enforce the agreement due to the breach of the contract. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the following observation made in the impugned judgment : " ------d fo|k/kj ds ejus ds ckn gh nkf[ky [kkfjt dk izkFkZuki= ns fn;k x;kA ml le; js'keknsoh de mez dh Fkh tSlk fd lk{;k ls Li"V gksrk gS vkSj mlus l'krZ le>kSrk fy[kk vkSj blh dkj.k mlus dksbZ vkifRr ugha dhA mlls ;g rks Li"V gksrk gS fd mlus vkius vf/kdkj dks lekIr djus dh 'krZ dh Fkh mldks xqtkjs ds fy, 450 :i;s lkykuk feyrk jgsxk fdUrq mldks 450 :i;s lkykuk xqtkjs ds fy, ugha fn;k x;k gS vkSj u bl izdkj dk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ;fn bl izdkj dksbZ lk{; vkrk gS fd mldks foi{khx.k dh vksj ls xqtkjs ds fy, tSlk fd nLrcjnkjh esa fy[kk x;k gS] og fn;k tkrk jgk gS rks js'kek nsoh fookfnr Hkwfe esa viuk vf/kdkj ekaxus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gks ldrh Fkha fdUrq tc nLrcjnkjh nLrkost ;k ikfjokfjd le>kSrk tks Hkh gks] mldh 'krZ iwjh u gks rks og izHkkoghu gks tkrk gS vkSj js'keknsoh ds vf/kdkj fookfnr Hkwfe esa cnLrwj jguk pkfg,A " 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that the approach of the revisional authority is patently erroneous and the revisional court should have asked the contesting opp. party to recover the amount and should not have treated the registered document executed by the contesting opp. party Smt. Resham Devi as ineffective. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the contesting opp. party has invited my attention to Annex. `1' attached with the writ petition and has contended that according to the terms of the registered document the contesting opp. party only relinquished her interest in zamindari property but she did not relinquish he interest in Sir and Khudkast pertaining zamindari property, hence she right claimed ? share in the disputed khatas an her claim was correctly recognised by the revisional authority. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opp. party has suggested that Si and Khudkast of the zamindar were cultivatory rights of the proprietors. hence unless the contesting opp. share in the disputed khatas an her claim was correctly recognised by the revisional authority. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opp. party has suggested that Si and Khudkast of the zamindar were cultivatory rights of the proprietors. hence unless the contesting opp. party ha specifically surrendered her interest in the cultivatory plot, her right would not extinguished and she would acquire fresh right under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act. In this connection the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has invited my attention to the following recitals Annex. `1' attached to the writ petition. "--------- pqukpsa cewftc rfjQ ;k etdwj okyk v'k[kkl etdwj okyk us cgd eqfdjk bdjkjukek uku o uQ~gdk rgjhj djds jftLV~h djk fn;kA rfLQ;k etdwj okyk ls gj rjQ Hkj Qk;nk o lwnks eqfdjk o vk'k[kkl etdwj okyk eqrlfCcj gS fygktk cgkyr flgr tkr o loky voy o njLrh gks'k gokl lElg [wkn ftyk tcz o djkb;r o ncko nhfxjs eqfdjk gfdd;kr tehankjh eUntZ rgr ds teZ gd gdwd ia0 vEck izlkn ia0 eqDrk izlkn] ia0 pfUnzdk izlkn bfyftcy filjku i0 mek'kadj o ia0 Jh /kj ukokfyjk filj es0 mek'kadj o foyk;r ia0 vEckizlkn fcjknj gdhdh o eSustj o is'kok [kkunku eq'krdZ vgr fguwn dkSea czkEg.k nkf{kr lkfduke ekS0 lafdlk clariqj etdwj nLrcjnkj o yknk[kkn gksrh gwaA eqfdjk dk gfd;r tehankjh esa dksbZ gd o fgLlk ugha jgk vkSj u vk;Unk ekfyd dkfot v'k[kkl etdwj okyk gks x;k vkSj gksaxs vkSj tks eqdnekr vnkyr eky esa py jgs gSa muesa v'k[kkl etdwj okyk viuk uke ntZ djk ysosaA eqfdjk dks dqN okLrk o ljksdj u gksxkaA fygktk ;g nLrcjnkjh ukek [kwc lksp le> dj o lqudj rgjhj dj fn;k fd lun jgsA " rilhy gfDd;kr tehankjh nLrcjnkjh 'kqnk fgLlk 'kSgj eqrcdQh ;kdruh nks gtkj :i;k%& " 8. I have considered the contentions `raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the contents of Annex. `I' attached with the writ petition. I have no doubt that the contesting opp. party 2 Smt. Resham Devi had surrendered her interest in the Zamindari property and had agreed to take Rs. 450/- annually in lieu of her right in the Zamindari property. Even the revisional authority has arrived at the conclusion that she had executed the deed and had agreed to the terms thereof. I have no doubt that the contesting opp. party 2 Smt. Resham Devi had surrendered her interest in the Zamindari property and had agreed to take Rs. 450/- annually in lieu of her right in the Zamindari property. Even the revisional authority has arrived at the conclusion that she had executed the deed and had agreed to the terms thereof. In the opinion of the revisional authority as the tenths of the agreement were not fulfilled by the petitioners the agreement became ineffective in law and the right of the opp. party 2 remained in tact in the disputed khatas. 9. To my mind the revisional authority has patently erred in holding that due to breach of the terms of the agreement the deed became ineffective or void in law. If the petitioners did not comply with the terms of the agreement entered into, it would give cause to the opp. party 2 to realise the amount agreed. Merely because the terms of the agreement were not honoured by them, the agreement would not become ineffective or void in law. The observation of the revisional authority that the deed became ineffective is patently erroneous in the circumstances of this case. 10. The bare perusal of Annex. `I' indicates that the opp. party 2 had surrendered her interest in HAKKIYAT Zamindari altogether. The term `HAKKIYAT Zamindari' denotes wide connotation. Sir and Khudkast are part and parcel of HAKKIYAT Zamindari. The arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting opp. party that the deed (Annex. `I' attached with the writ petition) did not relate specifically to Sir and Khudkast land held by opp. party 2 is not acceptable to me in the present case. In the year 1941 or 1942 if a widow in a joint family agrees to take maintenance, in common parlance, it is understood that she would have no interest in the property of her husband except to claim the amount by way of maintenance agreed. Mere absence of mention of Sir and Khudkast plot in Annex. `I' would not keep alive the right of the opp. party 2 in the disputed Khatas. The contention of the learned counsel for the opp. party 2 to the effect that the interest of opp. party 2 would remain in tact in Sir and Khudkast despite Annex.'I' executed by her is not acceptable to me. `I' would not keep alive the right of the opp. party 2 in the disputed Khatas. The contention of the learned counsel for the opp. party 2 to the effect that the interest of opp. party 2 would remain in tact in Sir and Khudkast despite Annex.'I' executed by her is not acceptable to me. On similar facts as involved in the present case a learned single Judge of this court in 1965 All LJ 637 Chhatrapal. v. Smt. Ram Sakhi has observed that Sir right is included in the proprietary rights of a Sir holder, and in any case it was a legal incident of his proprietary rights and by transfer of proprietary rights the Sir rights also stand transferred if other conditions of S. 9 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and S. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act were satisfied. A Division Bench of this Court in 1980 All LJ 57 Allahatala v. Dy. Director of Consolidation has also expressed itself to the effect that Sir rights are appurtenant to the proprietary interest and they pass to the transferee along with proprietary rights. 11. The aforesaid two cases of this Court are complete answer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting opp. party that the contesting opposite party's interest in Sir and Khudkast land remained in tact despite she surrendered all her rights in the Zamindari property in the village in which the disputed land was situated. 12. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are ready to forego the amount deposited by them with the District Dy. Director of Consolidation in (SIC) Court on 7-2-1980. According to him the maintenance claimed by the opp. party 2 at the rate of Rs. 450/- annually would be hardly equal to the amount deposited by the petitioners with the District Dy. Director of Consolidation. Without entering into controversy regarding payment or non-payment of maintenance claimed by opp. party 2 the petitioners are ready to part with the money already deposited and they are also ready to pay Rs. 450/- annually to opp. party 2. In this view of the matter I think that substantial justice would be done between the parties if the Opp. party 2 gets the amount deposited by the petitioner and she continues getting Rs. 450/- annually as agreed henceforward. 450/- annually to opp. party 2. In this view of the matter I think that substantial justice would be done between the parties if the Opp. party 2 gets the amount deposited by the petitioner and she continues getting Rs. 450/- annually as agreed henceforward. The learned counsel for the petitioners has undertaken that his clients would pay the aforesaid amount to opp. party 2 regularly henceforward without any hitch. The opp. party 2 will be entitled to withdraw the amount after executing a valid receipt regarding the amount received. 13. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional authority dated 18-1-1980 is hereby quashed, but it is made clear that the amount deposited by the petitioners with the District Dy. Director of Consolidation in pursuance of the stay order of this court dated 7-2-1980 shall be paid to the contesting opp. party 2, who will execute a valid receipt regarding the amount received. The petitioners shall also continue paying a sum of Rs. 450/- as agreed according to Annex `I' attached with the writ petition. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.