JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This second appeal is directed against the decree dated 16.5.85 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, allowing the appeal No. 331 of 1983-84 and setting aside the decree dated 15.6.84 passed by the Assistant Collector Unnao decreeing the suit No. 11/125 u/s 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that Smt. Sukh dei filed a suit u/s 229-B/176 of the Act against Ram Prasad and others with the contention that Kushahar was the Bhumidhar of the plot Nos.69/2-5-0, 95/0-17-0, 97/2-0-O, 101/1-0-0, 102/1-2-0, 120/1-15-0, 121/1-15-0, 146/0-12-0, 150/0-12-0, 73/2-4-0, 451/3-2-0, 132/1-3-0, 350/0-5-0, 351/0-6-0, 352/0-5-0 and 469/1-8-0, total area 21-10-0, situate in village Firozpur Kalan pergana and tehsil Shafipur, Kushahar died about 24-25 years back. Upon the death of Kushahar, the plaintiff Smt. Sukh dei being the widow of Babu Lal, son of Kushahar inherited the property of the deceased Kushahar along with Ram Prasad another son of the deceased Kushahar and came in possession jointly and the names of the plaintiff and defendant Ram Prasad,.were also jointly mutated over the plots in dispute. When the village came under consolidation scheme, the defendant Ram Prasad assured the plaintiff that her name would be got recorded in the consolidation records and so she did not make any objection during the course of consolidation proceedings. The cause of action arose on 1.9.75 when the defendant refused to give the crop of her share. The plaintiff filed a suit which was withdraw due to some technical defects. The second suit was filed after paying Rs. 100/- as costs awarded by the court. During consolidation operation, the defendant deceived her and got his name fraudulently recorded to the exclusion of the plaintiff. His name is recorded in representative capacity and the plaintiff is entitled to share in the land in dispute to the extent of 1/2. 3. The State contested the suit denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. Admitting the pedigree set up by the plaintiff, the defendant Ram Prasad denied the allegations and the claim of the plaintiff of her being heir of the deceased Kushahar. The learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties, framed 8 issued and after hearing the parties, decreed the suit on 15.6.84. Aggrieved by this judgment and the decree the defendant Ram Prasad preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties, framed 8 issued and after hearing the parties, decreed the suit on 15.6.84. Aggrieved by this judgment and the decree the defendant Ram Prasad preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the learned trial court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Hari Shanker, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit is not barred u/s 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act because the plaintiff being a widow of a pre-deceased son is an heir in law and the fact that she did not approach the consolidation authorities to get her name recorded as co-tenant does not debar her from claiming partition of the holding Relying on the case laws reported in 1978 RD 226,1980 R.D. 300 and 1979 RD 50, the learned counsel has submitted that inheritance is not barred u/s 49 of the U.P.G.H. Act. His second submission is that the learned Additional Commissioner has not given his findings on issue No. 2. 5. Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant could not be the heir of the deceased Kushahar u/s 171 in the year 1956. He has further submitted that the ruling referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable because there was no cause of action. Reliance has been placed on 1986 RD 292 and 1980 RD 300 . In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the parties admission has no bearing on title. Assailing the judgment of the court below, he has argued that the learned Additional Commissioner did hot record any finding on the point whether the amendment made u/s 171 of the Act would be operative with retrospective effect. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. Admittedly, the land in dispute originally belonged to Bhawani, father of Kushahar who died leaving behind his two sons, Babu Lal and Ram Prasad. The plaintiff appellant Smt. Sukhdei is the widow of Babu Lal who pre-deceased his father. The learned trial, court has found that the Tahsildar had ordered for mutuation in favour of both the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff appellant Smt. Sukhdei is the widow of Babu Lal who pre-deceased his father. The learned trial, court has found that the Tahsildar had ordered for mutuation in favour of both the plaintiff and the defendant. But the name of the plaintiff was not incorporated in the Khatauni and only the name of Ram Prasad was recorded. It has further observed that this was done with mala fide intention to deprive the plaintiff of her legitimate right. The learned trial court has further held that both the plaintiff and the defendant had made joint application for mutation. Where the land in dispute belongs to a common ancestor, failure on the part of one co-sharer to get his or her name recorded during consolidation operations does not bar the suit u/s 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. This view has also been taken by Sri J.S. Gupta, Member in Asa Ram v. Jyoti, 1978 RD 226. The ruling referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent are of no help to him. 7. The next crucial question to be decided is whether the plaintiff appellant was the heir of the deceased Kushahar. Prior to the Amendment Act, XXXVII of 1958, the widow of a pre-deceased son could not inherit the property. But by the Amendment Act of 1958, the amendment introduced were made retrospective and they were thus deemed to have been in the section from the very beginning. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, could succeed after the death of her father-in-law Kushahar. The fact that the amended section was operative with retrospective effect appears to have escaped the notice of the learned Additional Commissioner. 8. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order and decree passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner are "quashed and that of the learned trial court is upheld. The parties shall bear their own costs.