JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 23.9.1981 dismissing the revision filed against the order of the S.D.O. dated 26.9.1979 in a case u/s 34 L.R. Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that one Devi Singh was the tenure holder of the land in dispute. The mother of the revisionist Smt. Jhabbo applied for mutation in January 1979 claiming herself to be daughter of deceased Devi Singh. Opposite parties Sri Ram & others filed an objection alleging that they are themselves the daughter's sons of Devi Singh and their names have already been mutated over the land prior to the zamindari abolition and that the application of Smt. Jhabboo is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tahsildar allowed the application of Smt. Jhabboo but on appeal that order was reversed. The revision filed against the order of the S.D.O. was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record and the impugned judgments. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that Smt. Jhabboo was the daughter of Devi Singh and, therefore, was his heir and that the order passed by the Tahsildar was perfectly justified. 5. As against this contention learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out that Devi Singh had died prior to zamindari abolition and under Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act a married daughter was not an heir in the list of the successor whereas daughter's sons were legal heirs. He further argued that admittedly opposite parties Sri Ram & others are the daughter's sons of Devi Singh and, therefore, their names were rightly mutated before the zamindari abolition and that Smt. Jhabboo should have gone in regular suit rather than bring these proceedings. 6. The evidence on record fully justifies the argument of the opposite parties. Smt. Jhabboo has herself admitted Sri Ram & others to be the sons of another daughter Smt. Phulloo of Devi Singh. Under Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 a married daughter is not mentioned in the category of heirs whereas the daughter's sons are mentioned at 'K' in that Section. Smt. Jhabboo was aged about 75 years at the time of her examination in the court and according to her she has a son about 25 or 30 years. Under Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 a married daughter is not mentioned in the category of heirs whereas the daughter's sons are mentioned at 'K' in that Section. Smt. Jhabboo was aged about 75 years at the time of her examination in the court and according to her she has a son about 25 or 30 years. Secondly there is no reason to believe that she was not unmarried at the time of her father's death. She was, therefore, not an heir within the meaning of Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Opposite parties Sri Ram & others are admittedly daughter's sons of Devi Singh, hence they could legally succeed him and their names were rightly mutated. The learned counsel for the revisionist disputed the time of death of Devi Singh and argued that he had died after the zamindari abolition. This argument fails on two counts, firstly that no specific evidence about the date of death of Devi Singh was filed by Smt. Jhabboo and secondly in the khatauni the names of Sri Ram & others are found recorded from prior to 1360 fasli which clearly means that their names were brought on record before the zamindari abolition. It is, therefore, fully established from this entry that the death of Devi Singh had occurred prior to zamindari abolition at which time a married daughter was not an heir. In these circumstances the order of the Tahsildar was clearly against law and was rightly set aside on appeal. The orders of the appellate court and the Addl. Commissioner do not, therefore, suffer from any irregularity or illegality and there is no ground to interfere in them. 7. This revision is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly dismissed.