JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of the common judgment dated 15-9-1978 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh. Both the petitions involve almost similar questions. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. 2. Khata Nos. 29, 151, 153, 195 and 260 were in dispute and Smt. Shyama Kunwari, mother of Smt. Jagdeiya, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979, was recorded as sole tenure-holder in Khata no. 199 and in khata nos. 29, 151, 153, 195 and 260 as co-tenant in the basic year. Against basic year entry an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner Smt. Jagdeiya, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979, alleging that Smt. Shyama Kunwari was an original tenure-holder who executed a sale-deed in her favour and on 10-1-68, Smt. Jagdeiya did not execute any sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others, Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 1978 Smt. Maharajiya and another filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the UP CH Act alleging that Smt. Shyama Kunwari had executed a surrender-deed on 5-1-1968 in favour of her three daughters, namely, Smt. Jagdeiya (petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 92 of 1979), Smt. Maharajiya (the present petitioner and Smt. Prabhawati and that no sale-deed was executed by Smt. Jagdeiya in favour of Chandrika and others. Smt. Prabhawati died and after her death Smt. Sonmatiya, (petitioner no. 2 in the present writ petition) has contested the case alleging that after Smt. Shyama Kunwari her three daughters succeeded her interest and that there was no surrender by Smt. Shyama Kunwari and that Smt. Jagdeiya has not executed any sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others. It was prayed that the basic year entry may be corrected and Smt Maharajiya, daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and Smt. Sonmatia, grand-daughter of Shyama Kunwari and Smt. Jagdeiya daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari may be recorded as co-tenure-holders. Chandrika and others, Respondents no. It was prayed that the basic year entry may be corrected and Smt Maharajiya, daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and Smt. Sonmatia, grand-daughter of Shyama Kunwari and Smt. Jagdeiya daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari may be recorded as co-tenure-holders. Chandrika and others, Respondents no. 5 to 8, filed another objection claiming to be recorded as bhumidhar on the basis of the sale-deed and that Smt. Shyama Kunwari did not execute any surrender-deed in favour of her three daughters, rather she had executed a sale-deed in favour of her daughter Smt. Jagdeiya who was their vendor and that their names may be entered as bhumidhars on the basis of the sale-deed and the basic year entry may be corrected accordingly. 3. The Consolidation Officer decided the case by his order dated 13-11-1975 holding that all the three daughters of Smt. Shyama Kunwari got the land on the basis of the surrender-deed dated 5-1-1968 and directed that the names of Smt. Jagdeiya, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979, Smt. Maharajiya another daughter and Smt. Sonmatiya, daughter of third daughter Smt. Prabhawati daughter of Smt. Shyama Kunwari may be entered as co-tenants. Chandrika and others, the alleged vendees of Smt. Jagdeiya filed appeal and Smt. Jagdeiya also filed appeal. The vendees alleged that they have obtained sale-deed from Smt. Jagdeiya and were entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars whereas Smt. Jagdeiya alleged that she did not execute any sale-deed in favour of the vendees and that she alone was entitled to be recorded in place of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and her other sisters were not entitled to any right, title and interest in the property in dispute. All the appeals were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The parties preferred revisions. The revision of the vendees Chandrika and others was allowed and they were held to be bhumidhars on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Smt. Jagdeiya. The revision of Smt. Jagdeiya was also allowed to the extent that Smt. Shyama Kunwari did not execute any surrender deed in favour of her three daughters rather she was entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 1978 has been filed by Smt. Maharajiya and Smt. Sonmatiya who wanted to prove that Smt. Shyama Kunwari executed surrender deed in favour of all her three daughters and Civil Misc. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 1978 has been filed by Smt. Maharajiya and Smt. Sonmatiya who wanted to prove that Smt. Shyama Kunwari executed surrender deed in favour of all her three daughters and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 92 of 1979 was filed by Smt. Jagdeiya who wanted to challenge the sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Maharajiya and Smt. Sonmatiya, urged that the surrender deed of Smt. Shyama Kunwari has been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 183 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) in favour of her all the three daughters on 5-1-1968. Hence all the three daughters were entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars and the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation holding only Smt. Jagdeiya, to be entitled to the interest of Smt. Shyama Kunwari was erroneous. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand urged that only Smt. Jagdeiya was entitled to the plots on the basis of sale deed executed in her favour by Smt. Shyama Kunwari which were originally recorded in the name of Smt. Shyama Kunwari and that Smt. Jagdeiya has executed sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others. The learned counsel of Smt. Jagdeiya, on the other hand in the other writ petition, urged that she did not execute any sale-deed in favour of Chandrika and others whereas the learned counsel for the respondents urged that she did execute sale-deed and the vendees, namely, Chandrika; and others, were entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars. 5. The first point for determination is as to whether Smt. Shyama Kunwari has executed a deed of surrender dated 5-1-1968 in favour of her three daughters, namely, Smt. Maharajiya, Smt. Prabhawati and Smt. Jagdeiya. At the initial stage Smt. Shyama Kunwari was also alive. She had also filed written statement on 4-11-1968 (vide page 38 of the paper book of Writ No. 92 of 1979) and she clearly stated in her written statement that she did not execute deed of surrender in favour of three daughters, rather she had only executed a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Jagdeiya. She had also filed written statement on 4-11-1968 (vide page 38 of the paper book of Writ No. 92 of 1979) and she clearly stated in her written statement that she did not execute deed of surrender in favour of three daughters, rather she had only executed a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Jagdeiya. It is proved from this that the recorded tenure-holder Smt. Shyama Kunwari herself denied having executed any deed of surrender in favour of her three daughters rather she admitted to have executed a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Jagdeiya only (the petitioner in Writ No. 92 of 1979). 6. In fact the word ' surrender ' connotes to deliver over, to relinquish, to leave possession and title. The procedure for surrender, however, has been provided under Section 183 of the Act and for that it was necessary that the sirdar must make an application in writing to the Tahsildar and must give necessary notice in writing to the Land Management Committee intimating his/her intention to make surrender by giving up possession. Further Rules 165 and 167 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (for short the Rules) provide a detail procedure to be followed. Notice for surrender has to be given to the Land Management Committee by making an application to the Tahsildar. The notice would be given in Z.A. Form No. 55 and the application would be made to the Tahsildar indicating the intention of surrender mentioning the date on which the notice was served on the Land Management Committee. Rule 166 (one hundred and sixty six) provides that the sirdar who had given notice of surrender would be informed and directed to produce two witnesses to identify him/her and his signatures. The Chairman of the Land Management Committee shall call the sirdar and would ascertain the correctness of notice to him. In view of Rule 167 (One hundred and sixty seven) of the Rules after the receipt of the application the Tahsildar shall at the commencement of the next agricultural year send the application to the Lekhpal of the circle who shall get it attested by the applicant and the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and report if possession has been given up by the sirdar. In case the Lekhpal makes report that the possession has been given up, the Tasildar shall reject the application and inform the sirdar. In case the Lekhpal makes report that the possession has been given up, the Tasildar shall reject the application and inform the sirdar. In the instant case the procedure for surrender as provided under Section 183 of the Act and under Rules 165 and 167 of the Rules, was not followed nor there was anything to indicate that Smt. Shyama Kunwari wanted to give up possession nor the Lekhpal has made any such report. 7. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners Smt. Maharajiya and another in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9028 of 1978, alleged that Smt. Shyama Kunwari, the recorded tenure-holder, their mother had executed a deed of surrender in their favour. But the law does not contemplate that any surrender can be made in favour of another person or in favour of relations who can succeed. In case a woman makes a surrender her rights would come to an end. Section 172 of the Act enacts that when a widow who has inherited interest in the holdings, after the date of vesting, and surrendered such holdings or part thereof, or in case, any daughter surrenders such holdings, the same shall devolve on the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant who shall be ascertained according to the provisions of Section 171 (One hundred and Seventy one) of the Act. Similarly Section 172 (2) enacts that where a woman (mother) or daughter etc. has inherited holdings before the date of vesting and was entitled to a life estate only and she surrendered, the holdings devolve on the nearest surviving heir being ascertained in accordance with Section 171 of the Act. Whereas if she according to the personal law entitled to hold absolutely and makes the surrender, holdings shall devolve on her own heirs in accordance with Section 174. It is accordingly evident that the surrender cannot be made by a daughter, woman or a widow in favour of her daughter. In case such surrender is made by a woman the nearest surviving heirs of the last male tenant would inherit the holdings and not her daughter, unless she was entitled to absolute interest. In this case there is nothing to indicate nor there was any evidence that Smt. Shyama Kunwari was entitled to the holding absolutely. 8. In case such surrender is made by a woman the nearest surviving heirs of the last male tenant would inherit the holdings and not her daughter, unless she was entitled to absolute interest. In this case there is nothing to indicate nor there was any evidence that Smt. Shyama Kunwari was entitled to the holding absolutely. 8. In view of these facts also Smt. Maharajiya, daughter, and Smt. Sonmatiya, grand-daughter, cannot claim rights on the basis of surrender. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 92 of 1979, Smt. Jagdeiya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation the validity of two sale-deeds, first executed on 10-1-1968, by Smt. Shyama Kunwari in favour of the petitioner and second executed by Smt. Jagdeiya on 15-9-1969 in favour of Chandrika and others (Respondents 7 to 10) are involved. As regards the first sale-deed dated 10-1-68, is concerned the vendor Smt. Shyama Kunwari was the mother of vendee Smt. Jagdeiya and former had admitted in her written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 368 of 1971, that she had executed the sale-deed in favour of her daughter Smt. Jagdeiya only and perusing the findings recorded by the Consolidation Authorities and looking into the evidence I am convinced that first sale-deed was legally executed. 9. As regards second sale-deed executed by Smt. Jagdeiya in favour of Chandrika and others (Respondents 7 to 10) is concerned, a civil suit was filed by Smt. Jagdeiya (being Civil Suit No. 368 of 1971) which was pending when consolidation operations commenced and that suit appears to have abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order of abatement under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was illegal, inasmuch as it was a voidable sale-deed and in respect of such deed the suit could not abate. He placed reliance on Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Harai Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451 and on a Full Bench case in Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, 1976 AWC 412 . The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance on another Full Bench case reported in Prag v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1984 AWC 1034 (FB). 10. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance on another Full Bench case reported in Prag v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1984 AWC 1034 (FB). 10. In fact their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh (supra) held that in case dispute was about the validity of the voidable document in that case the consolidation authorities shall have no authority to adjudicate upon the validity of the deed, rather a suit for cancellation of voidable document lies in the Civil Court. The same view was followed by another Full Bench in Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna (supra). But in the instant case the civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed which was voidable was filed in the Civil Court and the said suit was pending when consolidation operations commenced. The suit was abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The proceedings commenced in respect of the validity of the sale-deed dated 15-9-1969. The case was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation assuming the order of abatement to be correct. The order of abatement was not challenged by filing any petition in the High Court that order of abatement became final. Now it is too late in the day to challenge that order of abatement. In fact under such situation a Full Bench of this Court, of which I was also a member, in Prag v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) has taken the view that the principle of res-judicata at different stages of the same litigation would apply. The order for abatement under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act became final and operates as res judicata between the parties and the same cannot be challenged. In these circumstances I am of the view that the order of abatement has been correctly passed and that became final and it is not open to challenge in this petition. In these circumstances I am of the view that the order of abatement has been correctly passed and that became final and it is not open to challenge in this petition. As regards the validity of the second sale-deed dated 15-9-1969 challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners suffice it to say that after the appraisal of the entire evidence on record the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that this sale-deed was valid and legal and was correctly executed by Smt. Jagdeiya, the present petitioner, in favour of Chandrika and others (Respondents 7 to 10). I have perused the impugned order and looked into relevant evidence on record and I do not find any error much less an error apparent on the face of the record and the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perfectly correct. I am of the view that the sale-deed dated 15-9-1969 executed by Smt. Jagdeiya in favour of Chandrika and others (Respondents 7 to 10) was correct and legal. 11. In view of the discussions made herein before I do not find any merits in both the petitions and they deserve to be dismissed. 12. In the result, both the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.