George Knox, Acting C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.@mdashThe suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs
respondents to recover possession of two cultivatory holdings, namely, the whole of khata No. 32 and a fourth share in khata No. 50. The holding
in khata No. 32 has been found to have been the non-occupancy holding of one Patipal Singh. The plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of Patipal
Singh. The defendants are his brothers. It has been found that Patipal Singh was the son of one Debi Singh who was a Kshatriya. Patipal Singh''s
mother was a Sudra and the question is--what was the status of Patipal Singh? If he was a Sudra, his illegitimate sons, the plaintiffs, would succeed
to his holding. If he belonged to some higher caste, the illegitimate sons would have no right of succession. The point does not appear to have been
decided by this Court, but it was considered in an elaborate judgment by the Madras High Court. In the case of Brindavana v. Radhamani I.L.R.
(1888) Mad. 72 it was hold that the illegitimate son of a Kshatriya, by a Sudra woman is not a Sudra but was of a higher caste called ""Ugra"". This
view is supported by the authorities cited in the judgment, and we have not been referred to any case in which a contrary view has been held. We
think upon the authorities we should follow the view adopted by the Madras High Court. The result is that Patipal Singh belonged to a higher caste
than that of a Sudra, and therefore his illegitimate sons would not succeed to the property which belonged to him. In this view the plaintiffs'' claim
failed and should have been dismissed. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this Court and of the courts below and dismiss the suit with
costs in all courts.