JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - These are 4 connected references made by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 10-7-1.984 through which he has recommended that the order of the S.D.O. Anupshahar dated 18-1-1984 be set aside and that the revisionist may be declared as the heirs of the deceased Smt. Ram Wati and mutation be made in their favour. 2. The facts of these cases in brief are that the recorded tenure-holder of the disputed property was Smt. Ramwati. On her death the revisionists Battoo Singh, Moharpal and Ramdar being her sons and Smt. Devi being her predeceased son Ram Dutt applied for mutation on the basis of the Will. 3. The opposite party Sitaram contested the mutation proceeding on the ground that the property belonged to his deceased brother Lakshman whose widow was Smt. Ramwati. After the death of Lakshman Smt. Ramwati remarried Narayan Singh whose sons are revisionists No. 1, 2 and 4 and Smt. Ram Devi's husband Ram Dutt was also the son of Narayan Singh, hence, they could not succeed to the property of Ram Wati which she had inherited from her late husband Lakshman and that Sitaram being the real brother of Lakshman is the next reversioner and is his sole heir. He also disputed the genuineness of the Will. 4. The learned Tahsildar accepted the Will and allowed the mutation application of the revisionists. On appeal by Sitaram the S.D.O. held the Will to be suspicious and reversed the order of the Tahsildar holding Sitaram to be the heir of Smt. Ramwati. The revisionist preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner who also found the Will to be suspicious, but held that since Smt. Ramwati had continued in possession for more than 30 years after the death of her first husband Lakshman hence she had acquired sole rights and, therefore, she became the absolute landholder and, so, on her death succession would be governed by Section 174 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and not under Section 172 of that Act and thus the revisionists are her heirs and their names are entitled to be mutated in place of Smt. Ramwati. 5. Opposite party is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists. Perused the record. 6. 5. Opposite party is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists. Perused the record. 6. It is evident from the record that both the parties admit that the property belonged to Lakshman who died about 30, 35 years back and on his death Smt. Ramwati remarried Narain Singh whose issues are the revisionists. In the khatauni the name of Ramwati is recorded as widow of Lakshman. Opposite party did not take up the case that she had ever tried to evict Smt. Ramwati from the land. According to the case of both the parties the title of Smt. Ramwati extinguished upon her remarriage with Narain Singh and, therefore, as against Sitaram she had become a trespasser. She was, therefore, not entitled to remain in possession after her remarriage with Narain Singh and deserved to have been evicted by Lakshman's next reversioner namely Sitaram who unfortunately did not take any steps to eject her from the land with the period of limitations. Thus on account of her adverse possession for more than the prescribed period her rights became absolute and the title of Sitaram extinguished. I, therefore, fully agree with the observation made by the learned Additional Commissioner that on the death of Smt. Ramwati succession would be governed by Section 174 and not by Section 172 of the Z.A. Act since she became landholder in her own rights and did not continue in possession as the widow of Lakshman after her remarriage. 7. In these circumstances the references made by the learned Additional Commissioner is based on sound reasons and are worthy of being accepted. The references are, therefore, accepted and the revisions are allowed and the order of Tahsildari upheld while the order of the S.D.O. dated 12-1-1984 is set aside. This order shall govern Reference Nos. 801-804 L.R. of 1983-84/Bulandshahar.