JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This is a defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit kit declaration and in the alternative for possession.

2. Balwant Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. Snit. Mathuri, plain-tiff No. 1, was Balwant Singh's second wife. Roop Chand, plaintiff No. 2, was his son. Defendant No. 1, Tejpal, was the son of Balwant Singh by a previous wife. Manak Chand, the second defendant, is a son of Tejpal i.e., he was the grand-son of Balwant. Singh. On 6-3-1959 Balwant Singh executed a deed of sale transferring the property in dispute in favour of Manak Chand, the second defendant. The two plaintiffs brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale was void because it was without any consideration and the transferor was not in his proper senses when he executed it. In defence, it was pleaded that Smt. Mathuri was not the widow of Balwant Singh and that Roop Chand was not his son. They not having any interest in the property in dispute were not entitled to sue. The sale was for consideration and it was valid and binding.

3. The trial court held that Smt. Mathuri was not the wife of Balwant Singh but Roop Chand was his illegitimate son entitled to inherit. The sale deed was without consideration and was void for the further reason that Balwant Singh was not in a sound disposing mind at the time of its execution. The suit was consequently decreed for declaration and possession lo favour of plaintiff No. 2. The defendants went up in appeal. The lower appellate court has confirmed the findings and the decree.

4. For the appellants it was urged that Roop Chand, plaintiff No. 2, being the illegitimate son was not in law entitled to succeed to the holding in dispute and, consequently, he had no interest in the property so as to entitle him to sue the defendants for declaration or for possession. Succession to the holding in dispute would be governed by Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under clause (a) of that section the male lineal descendant in the male line of descent succeed in equal share per stirpes. It was urged for the appellants that an illegitimate son is not a male lineal descendant within the meaning of Section 171 (a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The phrase "male line of descent" ought to be construed according to its natural meaning, uninfluenced by the personal law of the tenant, because an agricultural tenant has no religion and no personal law. Reliance was placed upon the following observations of Desai, C. J. in the case Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigunath, 1964 ALJ 197 (202).

"An agricultural tenant has no religion and no personal law except as expressly provided in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It applies to Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc. regardless of their religion and, therefore regardless of their personal law except as regards succession in certain cases. It contains its own provisions regarding inheritance and transfers; and when it has left certain mat tern to be governed by the personal law it has done so by an express provision. Personal law has never been applied proprietary vigore to questions of - inheritance and transfer of tenancy rights as it has been applied to inheritance and transfer of pro-prietary rights."

5. The observations, quoted above, were made only in passing; they do not go to suggest that particular words occurring in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be construed in the light of their meaning under the personal law. Moreover, the case of Ramji Dixitl was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1965 decided on 12th June, 1968. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Full Bench, but a reading of the Supreme Court judgment shows that the above-mentioned observations of Desai, C. J. were not assented to or even referred.

6. The law of succession to agricultural tenants has been governed in this State by various Tenancy Acts. The Agra Tena