ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. Dissatisfied with the judgments of both the Courts below it is the plaintiff's second appeal. The pedigree table set out in para 3 of the plaint would be necessary.

Narain Singh
Hari Singh					Gopal Singh
Daya Singh
Ram Singh
Shamsher Singh (died issueless)	Gulab Singh
	Ajmer Singh (died in 1975)		Kaka (died issueless in childhood)
Mohinder Singh (died issueless in 1969)	Mohan Singh (Defendant No. 1)		Rajkumar Singh (Defendant No. 2)
	Amar Singh (Plaintiff)	Amitabh Singh (Defendant No. 8)	Javender Singh (Defendant No. 9)	Yashwinder Singh (Defendant No. 10)

2. According to the defendants, the above pedigree is incomplete. The names of daughters and wives have been excluded. Mohinder Singh had left behind his widow, Prem Wati. Ajmer Singh had a daughter, Raj Kumari. It is the estate left behind by Ajmer Singh which is in dispute.

3. Amar Singh son of Mohan Singh had filed the suit and arrayed his brother and father, uncle and cousins as respondents and assailed the alienations made by his father and uncle Raj Kumar defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 11 to 35. The plaintiff claimed that he hailed from a family of Jagirdars of Ramgarh and the rule of primogeniture subsisted in the family and he being the elder son, was entitled to inherit and succeed to the entire Jagir, the details of which were given in the schedule attached with the plaint. The relief claimed was set out in the title. It was claimed that all the properties in the hands of Late Mian Ajmer Singh were inherited by Ajmer Singh from his fore-father and the same were Cis-Sutlej Jagir properties and Mian Ajmer Singh was simply a limited owner and had no right to alienate the Jagir estate as it was impartible and the Punjab Gazetteer of Ambala district included the family tree. It was claimed that the ancestors of the plaintiff were independent rulers who came under the protection of British government in or around 1809. In 1846, the British government introduced several reforms and with that objective, the government reduced the rights and privileges of the petty Chieftains and the ancestors of the plaintiff were reduced to the status of Jagirdars. However, the land possessed by them was left untouched and they were also granted Mufiyat qua land revenue. It was pleaded that the British government invited all the Jagirdars to submit their option regarding rule of primogeniture and they were to execute an agreement with the government and Mian Daya Singh, ancestor of the plaintiff executed an agreement on 23.7.1861 with the British government adopting the rule of primogeniture and a reference in this regard was made in the condition incorporated in the Register General of Jagir and annexed a copy dated 12.3.1889 with the plaint.

4. It was pleaded that in 1945, late Mian Ajmer Singh grandfather of the plaintiff executed an agreement with the Government adopting the rule of primogeniture and Government of Punjab issued a notification on 25.8.1945 and as per this agreement, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act were not applicable and the Jagir left by Mian Ajmer Singh was to come to the eldest son and the younger son was only entitled to maintenance.

5. The plaintiff had referred to para 87 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual by Mr. Douie and had claimed that the female heirs were not allowed to succeed to the Jagir and, therefore, neither Prem Wati widow of Mohinder Singh nor Raj Kumari daughter of Mian Ajmer Singh nor Parkash Vati grandmother of the plaintiff and wife of late Mian Ajmer Singh were entitled to any share and the corpus of Jagir was intact and all the holders were limited owners. On the death of Mian Ajmer Singh, defendant No. 1 (his father) only had a life tenure and all the alienations made by defendants No. 1 and 2 wer