JUDGMENT

S.N. Dwivedi, J. - There was one Smt. Karamdani. She was a tenure holder of some agricultural plots. She was the widow of one Lalit. She inherited the holding from Lalit. Chhotey and Rambaran were her co-tenure-holders over some of the plots. When she died, her interest devolved on her daughter Smt. Katwari. She became a widow. But it has been found by the consolidation authorities that she was in the continuous and exclusive keeping of one Namey. Meghu, the Appellant, is born from their illegitimate union. Smt. Katwari died on August 15, 1965. Thereupon Meghu claimed the plots as daughter's son of Lalit. His claim was contested by Chhotey and Rambaran. He lost before the consolidation authorities. Then he filed a writ petition in this Court. It was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

2. u/s 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act a daughter's son is entitled to succeed to the interest of his maternal grandfather. The question i; whether Meghu, who is born of the illegitimate union of his mother Smt. Katwari and Namey, is a daughter's son within the meaning of Section 171.

3. It may now be mentioned that Lalit, the maternal grand-father was a Shudra. According to the Hindu law the illegitimate son of Shudra is entitled to a share in his father's separate property. Following the Hindu Law, a learned; ingle Judge has held in Tejpal v. Roopchand 1969 RD 10 that the expression "male lenial descendant" in Section 171 includes the illegitimate son of a Shudra from a continuous and exclusive concubine. On the strength of this decision counsel for Meghu wants us to hold that the expression "daughter's son" in Section 171 includes also an illegitimate daughter's son of a Shudra. In interpreting the expression "male lenial descendant" in Tejpal's case the learned single Judge followed earlier decisions of this' Court as well as; the Board of Revenue under the Agra Tenancy Act and the UP Tenancy Act. Hr applied the rule of stare decisis. We find it difficult to extend the rule of stare decisis to the facts of the present case. We have not been inferred to any decision in support of the view that the expression "daughter's son" in the tenancy legislation includes the illegitimate daughter's son of a Shudra. On the other hand, the Hindu law is definitely against this extension. In Shome Shankar Rajendra Varere v. Rajesar Swami Jangam Indian Law Reports 21 All. 99 it was held that an illegitimate son of a Shudra cannot inherit the property of the legitimate son of his father. In Ry.V. Ayiswaryanandaji Saheb (died) and Others Vs. Ry. Sivaji Raja Saheb and Others, AIR 1926 Mad 84 it was held that an illegitimate son of Shudra will not inherit the stridhan of his father's wife. In Raj Fateh Singh v. Baldeo Singh AIR 1928 Ori 233 the Oudh Chief Court held that an illegitimate son of a Shudra cannot inherit the property of his great grandfather's brother. In Govindarajulu alias Jayaraman Vs. Balu Ammal and Others, AIR 1952 Mad 1 it was held that an illegitimate son of predeceased legitimate son cannot succeed to the property of the latter's father. It will follow from these cases that an illegitimate son of a Shudra is not entitled to inherit the property of a collateral of his (sic) of the illegitimate son of a (sic) confined to the property of his father Even this right is severely hedged in.

4. To sum up, neither authority nor the personal law supports the argument of counsel for Meghu. As at present advised, we are of opinion that the expression "daughter's son" in Section 171 will not include an illegitimate son of a Shudra.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.