JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two appeals have been filed by State Government under Sec. 331 (4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 9.11.1982 passed in Appeal No. 449/879 and 450/880 of District Shahjahanpur against the order and judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer, Powayan, District Shahjahanpur dated 31.7.81 in suit No. 87 and 88 under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Godawari Devi executed the sale in favour of respondent regarding the disputed plots given at the foot of the plaint on 22.3.1975. Mutation was not allowed in their favour, hence they filed the suit. The State Government contested the suit on the ground that Smt. Godawari Devi died heirless, hence the property vested in the State, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent has not acquired any right over the disputed plots. Both the cases consolidated by the trial court and had been dismissed by a common judgment on the ground that no deposit of 20 times of land revenue was done as no receipt has been filed. On this ground he dismissed both the suits. Appeal was filed against that decree and judgment. In the court of Addl. Commissioner receipt was filed from the State treasury, hence the appeal was allowed and both the suits were decreed, against this second appeals have been filed in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties Perused the record. 4. Smt. Godawari Devi died on 27.3.75 after three days of the execution of the sale-deed in favour of respondents. In this court the question-answer has also been filed that the money was deposited for the issue of bhumidhari certificate but the certificate was not issued. It might be on account of death of Smt. Godawari Devi then Smt. Godawari Devi died as a sirdar of the disputed plots, therefore, the transaction was void, as no bhumidhari certificate can be issued in favour of the dead person as laid down in Bharat Singh v. Bhudevi, 1987 R.D. 23 and 1978 R.D. 183. But the person who has purchased the land will have a right to continue over the disputed plot as a sirdar liable to ejectment on the suit of Gaon Sabha as held in Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue, 1985 R.D. 238. But the person who has purchased the land will have a right to continue over the disputed plot as a sirdar liable to ejectment on the suit of Gaon Sabha as held in Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue, 1985 R.D. 238. Thus the respondents become bhumidhars when the provisions was made in 1977 amendment that all sirdars will acquire bhumidhari right. The Gaon Sabha his right to eject the respondent with six months from the date of void transaction. The transaction was done on 22.3.1975. The period for ejectment expired on 22.3.1981, till that date no ejectment suit was filed by the Gaon Sabha, therefore, the respondents have become bhumidhars after that. On this account too the respondents has perfected their right. In these circumstances of the case the appeals decided by the first appellate court is in accordance with the law and fact, hence no interference needed in these second appeals. 5. Those two appeals are dismissed. Parties should bear their own costs. This order shall govern S.A. No. 26 and 26-A of 1982-83 District Shahjahanpur.