SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10. 11. 1975, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 13. 8. 1976 and the order of the deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur, dated 12. 5. 1978. ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to Khata No. 50. 64, 19 and 17 of village Raipur Pokhta. Tappa Chaurasi. Pargana Kantit. Tahsil Sadar, District Mlrzapur. During the consolidation proceedings in the basic year khatauni the name of Smt. Sumitra, petitioner No. 1. was recorded over Khata Nos. 50 and 19 exclusively, while in Khata Nos. 64 and 17 she was recorded with the respondents. The contesting respondents filed objection that Smt. Sumitra had no right over the land in dispute as her husband died before the year 1937. The land in dispute was Sir and Khudkasht and she will not have any right over the land in dispute. The petitioner denied this allegation. She claimed that her husband died after the year, 1937. The consolidation authorities have recorded concurrent finding that the husband of Smt. Sumitra died after the year 1937 and the land in dispute was Sir and Khudkasht land. She will not inherit any share of her husband. The gift deed executed by her in favour of Shitla Prasad, petitioner No. 2, on 3. 1. 1989 shall be treated as a void document in respect of the property owned by her husband. ( 3 ) THE core question is whether Smt. Sumitra will inherit the right of her husband who had expired before the year 1937. It is not disputed that the land in dispute was Sir and Khudkasht land. At the time of death of the husband of Smt. Sumitra, the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 were applicable. Section 24 of the Act provides for succession to a male tenant. In the order of succession, male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, has a preferential right over the widow. This section is. however, not applicable in respect of Sir and Khudkasht land. Section 5 of Agra Tenancy Act provides that on the death of a Sir-holder, his Sir-right shall devolve on the person who succeeds to his proprietary interest in the Sir. The succession to proprietary interest is governed by personal law. ( 4 ) UNDER the old Hindu Law. however, not applicable in respect of Sir and Khudkasht land. Section 5 of Agra Tenancy Act provides that on the death of a Sir-holder, his Sir-right shall devolve on the person who succeeds to his proprietary interest in the Sir. The succession to proprietary interest is governed by personal law. ( 4 ) UNDER the old Hindu Law. a widow was entitled to succeed the rights and title of her husband but such rights and titles were limited known as "widow estate". She had only a life interest and could not alienate the property except for legal necessity. ( 5 ) BEFORE the Hindu Law Inheritance (Amendment) Act. 1929 came into force, the only female recognised as heir in Benaras and Mithila Schools were (1) widow ; [2) daughter ; (3| mother ; (4) fathers mother and (5) fathers fathers mother. Under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 which came into force on 21st February, 1929, the sons daughter, daughters daughter and the sister ranked as heir in alt parts of India where the Mitakshara Law prevailed vide Mullas Principles of Hindu Law 14th Edition, Page 142. ( 6 ) THE Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 came into force from 14th April. 1937. The act conferred new rights on widows in modification of previous law to the extent mentioned in the provisions of this Act. In case of separate property of the husband, the widow was given share along with the sons and in case of Mitakshara joint family, the widow takes the place of her husband. The 1937 Act only enlarged the widows rights which were not in existence prior to 1937 but as regards succession to the right of her husband. widow was entitled to succeed even prior to 1937. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the husband of Smt. Sumitra died without leaving any male descendant. She inherited the rights in the Sir and Khudkasht land of her husband. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 came into force and all the tenants who had any right in the land were given new rights, namely. Sirdari and Bhumidhari rights under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Under Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act. the widow became absolute owner of the property in which she had only a limited interest. 1950 came into force and all the tenants who had any right in the land were given new rights, namely. Sirdari and Bhumidhari rights under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Under Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act. the widow became absolute owner of the property in which she had only a limited interest. The matter came up for consideration before the Full Bench in Ramji Dixit v. Bhrlgu Nath and others, 1964 ALJ 197, wherein the majority decision took the view that if a female who has inherited holding before the enforcement of the Act from the last male holder, acquires Bhumidhari right and such tenure-holder is entitled to transfer the property. In this case, the husband of the widow had expired In the year, 1923. The land in question was Sir and Khudkasht. The widow acquired bhumidhari rights and thereafter executed a gift deed on December 18. 1952. On consideration of the provisions of the Act. it was held that after she acquires an absolute right under the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. she was entitled to execute the gift deed. The judgment was affirmed by the Apex Court in Ramji Dixit v. Bhrlgu Nath and others, 1968 ALJ 844. This legal position was further affirmed by the Supreme Court in vishwanath Pandey v. Badami Kaur, AIR 1980 SC 1329 , wherein it was emphasised that the widow gets the absolute right after the enforcement of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act. ( 8 ) THE view taken by the respondents that petitioner No. 1 did not succeed to the rights of her husband prior to 1937 and did not acquire any rights after the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act is not sustainable. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12. 5. 1978 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the rights and shares of the parties over the land in dispute keeping in view the above proposition of law. In respect of other points, the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is maintained. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. .