JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - These are 3 second appeals against judgment of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi dated August 24, 1973. These second appeals involve the same question of facts and law and they are interconnected, hence by this judgment all the three appeals shall be disposed off. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. This order shall govern all 3 connected appeals. Its copy shall be placed on the connected second appeals. 3. The facts of the case are that Deoraj filed suit on May 1, 1971 against Shiv Nath, Kashi and others. Three suits were filed because there were different defendants. The cause of action was death of Naurangi of Punwasi. Naurangi died on February 12, 1971. She had 1/2 share in the plots mentioned is suit No. 587, 1/4 share in the land mentioned in suit No. 589 and she was the sole owner of the land mentioned in suit No. 588. Naurangi deposited 10 times to acquire Bhumidhari rights in respect of Sirdari Khata (except Khata No. 44 of suit No. 589) as she was a Sirdar and could not transfer the land and plaintiff as her heir became the sole owner of the share of Naurangi in the respective plots of respective suits. 4. The contesting defendants Kashi (now his heir Basanti) and others filed written statement on July 22, 1976 inter alia alleging on November 21, 1971, two sale-deeds were executed by Naurangi. One sale deed was executed in favour of Kashi in respect of all land except plot No. 2 Minjumla of Khata No. 128(.32). The other sale deed of that very day was executed in respect of plot No. 2 area .32 of Khata No. 128 in favour of Kashi Nath, Munnu, Manohar and Banarsi. The money was deposited for acquiring Bhumidhari rights on or before November 21, 1970. On December 11, 1970 order of granting Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of Khata No. 128 was passed. The other order of granting Bhumidhari Sanad (passed on February 22, 1972) was in respect of Khatas No. 127, 129 and 130 and was passed in the name of Deoraj (heir of Naurangi). 5. On December 11, 1970 order of granting Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of Khata No. 128 was passed. The other order of granting Bhumidhari Sanad (passed on February 22, 1972) was in respect of Khatas No. 127, 129 and 130 and was passed in the name of Deoraj (heir of Naurangi). 5. Now U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act 21 of 1962 Section 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been amended and according to it the Bhumidhari rights were acquired by the Sirdar from the date of the deposit of money. 6. The Assistant Collector 1st Class decided all the three cases by his judgment dated October 31, 1972. He partly dismissed the suit and partly decreed it. Thus while dismissing the suit in respect of Khata No. 128 he ordered that Sirdari plots solely in the name of Naurangi were transferred to Kashi and other defendants and the order of Sanad in this respect was granted on December 11, 1970 (i.e., before the death of Mst. Naurangi who died on February 12, 1971). So far as the Khata No. 130 of suit No. 589 and Khata No. 127 of suit No. 587 are concerned the suits were decreed and the transfer of Naurangi of the plots of the Khata were not deemed to be transferred legally because the order of the certificate was passed on February 22, 1972, i.e. after the death of Mst. Naurangi. 7. The Additional Commissioner by his judgment dated August 24, 1978 has allowed the appeal in respect of Khata No. 129 (plot No. 36/2 only) and has dismissed the appeals in respect of other Khatas. The re-suit of the appeal has been that in suit No. 588 Khata No. 44 and 128 were held to be legally transferred by Naurangi to Kashi and other as the former Khata was her Bhumidhari and in the latter Khata the order of issuing Bhumidhari Sanad was passed on December 11, 1970 (before the death of Naurangi). 8. Now remains the dispute in respect of Khata No. 127, 129 and 130. In Khata No. 129 Mst. Naurangi was the sole owner and according to judgment of learned Additional Commissioner Deoraj became its sole owner as Sirdar after her death. In respect of Khata No. 127 of suit No. 587 Naurangi had 1/2 share. 8. Now remains the dispute in respect of Khata No. 127, 129 and 130. In Khata No. 129 Mst. Naurangi was the sole owner and according to judgment of learned Additional Commissioner Deoraj became its sole owner as Sirdar after her death. In respect of Khata No. 127 of suit No. 587 Naurangi had 1/2 share. This writ Khata No. 127 of suit No. 587 Naurangi had 1/2 share. This suit was decreed and Deoraj plaintiff was declared as Bhumidhar of 1/2 share of Naurangi and defendants 1 of 6 were allotted 1/2 share as Sirdar. In respect of this appeal has been dismissed, it means that Deoraj has been ordered to be recorded in place of Naurangi. In the same way in Khata No. 130 (suit No. 589) Deoraj was declared Bhumidhar of 1/4th share of Naurangi and the shares of other defendants Sheo Nath and others were also allocated. 9. The share of Naurangi in Khata No. 127 and 130 and her sole share in Khata No. 129 has been declared to be the tenancy of Deoraj as heir and the sale deed executed by Mst. Naurangi on November 21, 1970 in respect of these plots were held to be invalid because the Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of these Khatas were obtained on February 22, 1972. 10. Admittedly the money for obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad was deposited by Mst. Naurangi. This fact has been affirmed in her sale deed dated November 12, 1970. There remains no doubt about the fact that money was deposited by November 21, 1970. Now the question remains whether the Bhumidhari rights accrue to the tenant from the date the money had been deposited or from the date of the order of issuing the Bhumidhari Sanad or from the date of actually issuing the Bhumidhari Sanad. The position whether the right accrue from the date of the issuing of the certificate or from the date of the order of issuing Bhumidhari certificate is not material in the present case. But this point has been settled in case of Banshi Dhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari 1971 R.D. (H.C., F.B.) 371. 11. The whole case now depends on single point whether the Bhumidhari right accrue to Mst. But this point has been settled in case of Banshi Dhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari 1971 R.D. (H.C., F.B.) 371. 11. The whole case now depends on single point whether the Bhumidhari right accrue to Mst. Naurangi on the date of the sale deed when she had deposited 20 times of money for obtaining the Bhumidhari Sanad or not, because the order of issuing of Bhumidhari Sanad was passed on February 22, 1972 in favour of her heir Deoraj (plaintiff-respondent). 12. The Sanad granted in the name of deceased person is not a nullity as held by my brother Member in Ayodhi v. Ram Bilas 1984 R.D. 315 because the order passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity. The main point is - if the order of issue of Sanad is given in the name of the heir and not in the name of the deceased person can the Sanad granted be said to be retrospective and give right in the deceased to transfer the property. 13. It is clear that after amendment of Section 137-A the Sanad operates retrospectively, it automatically invested the depositor with the Bhumidhari rights on the date of deposit. (vide Kallar v. D.D.C. 1967 U.P. Revenue Cases 274. 14. It has also been observed by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Kirti in case Banshidhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari 1971 R.D. 371 (F.B.) in paragraph 22 that once the requisite sum has been deposited by the Sirdar applying for acquisition of Bhumidhari right he acquires a vested and indefeasible right to become a Bhumidhari. 15. In the present case Bhumidhari order for granting the Bhumidhari Sanad was passed on February 22, 1972, hence it retrospectively invests the Bhumidhari right on the depositor i.e. Mst. Naurangi is immaterial whether the order has been passed to record the name of her heir as Bhumidhari. When the order to record the deceased depositor as Bhumidhar cannot be a nullity (as observed above), the order to issue the Sanad (certificate) in the name of her heir cannot in any way take away the same effect of the order of the granting of Bhumidhari Sanad (had it been in the name of the deceased depositor). 16. Now it is will settled that the order granting the certificate is material and this order can be passed even in favour of a deceased person. 16. Now it is will settled that the order granting the certificate is material and this order can be passed even in favour of a deceased person. In such circumstances the order will have a retrospective effect and the depositor shall be deemed to be Bhumidhar from that date. In the same way if the order to grant the certificate has been given in favour of the heir of the deceased it will have the same effect. In the present case admittedly the money was deposited before the order to grant the certificate and the order was given in favour of the heir of the deceased. 17. Hence the sale deed executed by Mst. Naurangi on November 21, 1970 in respect of Khata No. 127 (1/2 share) and in Khata No. 130 (1/4th share) and in Khata No. 129 (the sole owner) in favour of Kashi son of Ram Gulli was valid and Mst. Naurangi had a right to transfer the same. Hence the heirs of Kashi, Smt. Basanti, is entitled to get these shares in her favour. The shares of Shiv Nath etc. allotted by the lower court has been confirmed and there is no dispute in respect of the same. Hence the respective shares of the parties are allotted accordingly. 18. Second appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.