JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member. - Second appeal No 270 of 1979-80 was filed by Sri Ajudhi alias Ayodhya against Sarvasri Ram Bilash, Bateshwar, U.P. State and Gaon Sabha Pilkhana while second appeal no. 3 of 1980-81 was filed by Sarvasri Ram Bilas and Batheshwar against Sri Ajudhi, U.P. State and Gaon Sabha Pikhana. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Purshottam son of Khemkaran was sole sirdar of the plots No. 243 and 503 situated at the Pilkhana while he was Sirdar of ? share only in plot No. 521 situated at Pickhana. In this plot Sri Tika Ram son of Mohan had ? share and Sarvasri Sewa Ram, Ajudhi and Puttoo son of Jai Ram had ? share. Sri Purshottam had deposited 20 times of rent on Nov. 25, 1974 to become Bhumidahr. He executed sale deeds on November 27, 1974 in favour of the plaintiff Sri Ajudhi alias Ayodhya. Sri Purshottam died on December 4, 1975. The application for Bhmidahri Sanad regarding plots Nos. 243 and 593 subject matter of Suit No. 30 of 1978 was rejected by Assistant Collector Ist Class on May 23, 1975. However Bhumidhari Sanad was issued regarding ? share of Purshottam in plot No. 521 vide order of Assistant Collector 1st Class dated January 5, 1976, which plot is subject matter of suit No. 31 of 1978. This order of assistant Collector Ist Class became final. As the name of plaintiff could not be mutated in place of deceased Purshottam, the plaintiff Sri Ajudhi alias Ayodhya filed two suits Nos. 30 and 31 of 1978 regarding two different Khatas. Both suits were consolidated and disposed of by the lower court by a common judgment. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds including that no valid sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff as Purshottam died as Sirdar and no Bhumidhari Sanad was issued in his life time. Sale deeds were invalid. The trial court dismissed both the suits on March 23, 1979. Plaintiff filed tow appeals, out of which second appeal No. 435/1 regarding plots No. 243 and 503 subject matter of suit no. 30 of 1978 was dismissed. while appeal No. 436/6 regarding plot No. 521 subject matter of suit No. 31 of 1978, was allowed and the suit was decreed. Plaintiff filed tow appeals, out of which second appeal No. 435/1 regarding plots No. 243 and 503 subject matter of suit no. 30 of 1978 was dismissed. while appeal No. 436/6 regarding plot No. 521 subject matter of suit No. 31 of 1978, was allowed and the suit was decreed. Against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly dated June 28, 1980, Second appeal No. 270 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff Sri Ayodhya while second appeal no. 3 of 1980-81 was filed by defendants Sarvasri Ram Bilash and Bateshwas. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through record. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Ayodhya argued that the benefit of Section 43 of T.P. Act should be given to the plaintiff regarding the land for which no Bhumidhari Sanad was issued as by operation of law by U.P. Act 8 of 1979 with effect from January 23, 1977 all the Sirdars became Bhumidahrs. Even heirs of Purshottam are bound by the sale deed and as such benefit of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act should be available to the plaintiff even against the heirs of deceased Purshottam. 5. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff but I do not agree with it. Sri Purshottam died before becoming Bhumidhar. Only his successor became Bhumidhar by operation of law. As held in Ram Deo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1968 R.D. 99 by Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra (Now Chief Justice) of Allahabad High Court: "Section 43 of the Transfer of Property 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 person. It does not run with the estate. Under this equity, if deceased Sirdar had acquired the Bhumidhari interest in the Sirdari holding subsequently, that interest would go to the feed the estoppel against him; and the transfer executed by him will operate on the subsequently acquired interest. But he person who is affected by the equity as well as the rule of estoppel is the transferor personally. Under this equity, if deceased Sirdar had acquired the Bhumidhari interest in the Sirdari holding subsequently, that interest would go to the feed the estoppel against him; and the transfer executed by him will operate on the subsequently acquired interest. But he 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, Section 43 will not apply and any 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 Ban Sabodh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 A.L.J. 1252, Hon'ble Justice K.N. Misra of Allahabad High Court held that "the transferee cannot invoke Section 43 Transfer of Property Act because the provisions of Section 43 could apply only if the transferor had acquired Bhumidahr rights subsequent to the date of sale during his life time. The statutory conferment of Bhumidahri rights under U.P. Act 8 of 1977 upon the heir of the deceased transferor Sirdar would not enure to the benefit of the transferee and the provision of section 43 T.P. Act would not be attracted to such a case." 7. Thus it is well established law that the statutory conferment of Bhumidhari right under U.P. Act 8 of 1977 upon the heirs of the deceased transferor Sirdar would no enure to the benefit of the transferor and the benefit of Section 43 of transfer of Property Act would not be available to him. 8. The learned counsel for the defendant Sarvasri Ram Bilas an Bateshwasr argued that as the bhumidahri Sanad was issued after the death of Sri Purshottam regarding his ? share in plot No. 521, the order granting Bhumidhari Sanad was nullity. Sri Purshottam died as Sirdar and not as Bhumidhar by the sale of his ? share plaintiff got no right in plot No.521. He relied on 1965 A.L.J. 502, 1968 R.D. 99, 1971 R.D. 371, 1976 R.D. 183 and 1982 A.L.J. 1252. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri Ajudhi argued in reply that the order granting Sanad became final between parties any by it Sri Purshottam became Bhumidhar from the date of the deposit of 20 times of rent. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Mr. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri Ajudhi argued in reply that the order granting Sanad became final between parties any by it Sri Purshottam became Bhumidhar from the date of the deposit of 20 times of rent. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra of Allahabad High Court(Now Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court) given in Ram Harak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 1828 of 1973, decided on August 2, 1979, summary of which is reported in 1980 A.L.J. 16 =1980 R.D. 44. Certified copy of the complete judgment was also filed before first appellate court which is on record. He pointed out that in the judgment relied upon by the learend counsel for the defendant effect of the Statement made by Section 6 of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 21 of 1962 was not considered. According to him no other court considered the point that the order granting Bhumidhari Sanad in favour of Purshottam, through passed after his death become file and the Sanad was never cancelled under Section 137-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further pointed out that decree or order passed against dead person may be nullity but not passed in his favour as held by Mr.Justice Misra in this case of Ram Harak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. 10. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the various ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The ruling given by Mr. Justice R.B. Misra in Ram Baran v. Dy. Director of consolidation Civil Mist Writ petition No. 1923 of 1973 decided on August 2, 1979 fully applied to the fact of the present case. In this ruling Bandhu deposited 10 time rest on May 28, 1968 and executed sale deed in favour of Ram Harak and Sita Ram petitioner on the same date. He died in the night between 29 and 30 May, 1968. Tahsirdar issued the order to grant the Bhumidhari Sanad in favour of Bandhu on May 30, 1968 that is after his death. On July 30, 1969 Somari respondent filed application under section 137-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of Bhumidhari Sanad which was rejected by assistant Collector on June 22, 1970. Tahsirdar issued the order to grant the Bhumidhari Sanad in favour of Bandhu on May 30, 1968 that is after his death. On July 30, 1969 Somari respondent filed application under section 137-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of Bhumidhari Sanad which was rejected by assistant Collector on June 22, 1970. Appeal filed by Somari against the order was dismissed on July against the order as dismissed on July 27, 1972 by the Addl. Commissioner and there order passed in proceeding under Section 137-A became final. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra agreed with the observation made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra in Kallar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1967 U.P. Revenue Cases 274, who observed that "the fact that depositor (deceased Sirdar) died before the grant of the Sanad will make no difference because the certificate was nonetheless granted in his name and because no proceedings for the cancellation of the Sanad under Section 137-A of the Act were taken. There being a statutory provision for the cancellation of the Sanad and that no having been taken, this Sanad will be treated as a valid Sanas. Since the Sanad Operates retrospectively it automatically invested depositor with the Bhumidhari rights on the date of deposit." Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra also agreed with the observations of Calcutta High Court in Himangshu Bhusan Kar v. Henidra Mohan Sahai, AIR 1954 Cal. 205 that "it is well settled that generally speaking, a decree passed in favour of dead person is not a nullity although a decree made against dead person is a nullity." 12. In the present case before the Bhumidhar Sanad was granted in favour of deceased Purshottam it was cancelled under section 137-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act it became final. Through Bhumidhari Sanad was granted in favour of deceased after his death order was not a nullity and the effect of it is that the deceased became Bhumidahr from the date of the deposit of the rent. Thus the learned Addl. Commissioner rightly decreed Suit No. 31 of 1978 regarding the subject matter of which Bhumidhari Sanad was issued. 13. As regards the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent they do not apply to the facts of the present case. I am dealing with them on by one. 14. Thus the learned Addl. Commissioner rightly decreed Suit No. 31 of 1978 regarding the subject matter of which Bhumidhari Sanad was issued. 13. As regards the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent they do not apply to the facts of the present case. I am dealing with them on by one. 14. In Anis Ahmad v. State of U.P., 1965 A.W.R. 458, it was held that a sirdar . If Bhumidhari Sanad was granted, the person become Bhamidhar and if not granted he did not become Bhumidahr. In the two suits filed by the plaintiff before me the suit NO. 30 of 1978 was rightly dismissed by the Courts below wherein no Bhumidhari certificate was granted to Purshottam. 15. The case of Ram Deo v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1967 U.P. Revenue Cases 262, Bhumidhari certificate was issued in the name of son of the deceased and not in the name of deceased who executed the sale deed. This case was considered by the Hon'ble Justice R.B. Misra also and was rightly distinguished. 16. In Ram Swaroop v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1971 R.D. 84 was a case where deposit was made and the sale deed was execute before the amendment of Section 134-137 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act No. 21 of 1961-62. It was held that a person becomes Bhumidhar on the grant of sanad form the date of granting Sanad not from the date of deposit of 10 times land revenue. In the present case before me the deposit was made after the amending Act of 1962. 17. In Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajadhari, 1971 A.W.R. 440 Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court held that the change of status of a sirdar into a Bhumidhar occur when Assistant Collector makes the judicial grant. In this case application of widow of deceased that Bhumidahri certificate may not be prepared was rejected. This case is not helpful to defendants. 18. In Raghunandan v. Yashwant Singh, 1978 R.D. 183, it was held that the order granting the Sanad after the applicant has died was nullity. In this case this point was not considered that the order passed against the death of the applicant was in his favour and not against him, a point which was considered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra in the writ petition of Ram Harak v. Dy. In this case this point was not considered that the order passed against the death of the applicant was in his favour and not against him, a point which was considered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra in the writ petition of Ram Harak v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, Civil Misc. W.P. No. 1828 of 1973. This subsequent decision of Justice R.B. Misra is to be followed. 19. In Ram Subhodh v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1982 A.L.J. 1252 no order for granting Bhumidahri Sanad was passed in favour of deceased applicant. In the present case before me Bhumidhari Sanad Was granted in favour of the deceased Sri Prushottam regarding his ? share in plot no. 521. 20. Thus is clear that the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner dated June 23, 1980 was the correct order. There is no force in both the second appeals which are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.