JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is defendants’ second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 87 of 1973 which was dismissed on 8.11.1976 by 4th Additional Munsif, Ghazipur. Against the said decree plaintiff-respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1976 which was allowed by 4th Additional District Judge, Ghazipur on 12.5.1978 hence this second appeal. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 22.1.1973. 2. Original plaintiffs Khadan Singh and Sankatha Singh filed the suit against the original appellants of the second appeal Panaru Lohar and Smt. Jasoda Kunwar. The sale-deed had been executed by defendant-appellant No. 2 Jasoda Kunwar in favour of defendant-appellant No. 1 Panaru Lohar. The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs and Ram Adhar Singh husband of Smt. Jasoda Kunwar (or Yashoda Kunwar) belong to the same family that Ram Adhar Singh had died about 45 years before filing of the suit. It was further pleaded in the plaint that after the death of Ram Adhar Singh, the name of Yashoda Kunwar defendant No. 2 was got entered in the revenue record for her satisfaction only and she was entitled only to right of maintenance. Since after zamindari abolition till the date of execution of the sale-deed, the name of defendant No. 2 continued to be recorded in the revenue records as Sirdar/Bhumidhar. In consolidation a compromise took place in 1960 in between the parties and name of defendant No. 2 was agreed to be recorded/continued to be recorded in the revenue records as Sirdar/Bhumidhar. 3. This second appeal was admitted on 23.8.1978 after formulating substantial question of law. The said order is quoted below : “The point whether Smt. Yashoda Devi had a transferable right in the plot in dispute is a substantial question of law : Admit. Issue notice.” 4. Through the sale-deed in question Smt. Yashoda Kunwar had transferred her 1/6th share in the agricultural plot Nos. 262 and 280. 5. The said order is quoted below : “The point whether Smt. Yashoda Devi had a transferable right in the plot in dispute is a substantial question of law : Admit. Issue notice.” 4. Through the sale-deed in question Smt. Yashoda Kunwar had transferred her 1/6th share in the agricultural plot Nos. 262 and 280. 5. The Supreme Court in Vijay Pal Singh and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and another, AIR 1996 SC 146 and Ram Avtar and another v. Ramdhani and another, AIR 1997 SC 107 , after interpreting Sections 11 and 18 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act has held that even if land was given in lieu of maintenance to the widow of a deceased tenure-holder she became sirdar/bhumidhar of the same. 6. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, according to which any right in respect of agricultural land if not claimed during the consolidation operation could not be raised afterwards or if a question regarding title of agricultural land has been decided by consolidation Courts, it cannot be re-agitated. 7. In the consolidation a compromise has been entered on 8.10.1960 between Smt. Yashoda Kunwar and the plaintiffs giving absolute right to Smt. Yashoda Kunwar. The lower appellate Court committed a grave error of law by brushing aside the said compromise and the order of Consolidation Officer accepting the said compromise on the ground that Smt. Yashoda Kunwar had only a right of maintenance. 8. Accordingly, substantial question of law as framed at the time of admission of the appeal is decided in favour of the appellant and it is held that Smt. Yashoda Devi had perfectly transferable right in the agricultural plots in dispute. The second appeal is, therefore, allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court (dismissing the suit) is restored. ——————