Kapur, J. - (1.) In this second appeal the sole question for decision is whether the estate of a proprietor dying without leaving any heirs the inheritance goes to the 'pattidars1 belonging to all tribes or to those who belong to the same tribe or 'got' as the deceased owner.
(2.) The land in dispute belonged to Bhola, a Rajput Chohan of Kurali. On the 18th of January, 1942, he died without leaving any heirs. On the 6th of October, 1943, the land was mutated in favour of Patti Mohar Singh irrespective of the caste to which they belonged. On the 11th of May, 1946, the Rajput proprietors of the Patti brought a suit for declaration that they were entitled to exclude proprietors De-longing to tribes other than Chohan Rajputs. The village is a heterogeneous one. Both the Courts below have held, relying on documents Exhibits P. 7 and P. 15 giving the custom of this Tehsil, that Rajputs would exclude the other proprietors in the Patti with regard to succession to the estate of Bhola.
(3.) Mr. Pandit has submitted that on a correct interpretation of the entries in Exhibits P. 7 and P. 15 all the 'pattidars' have equal rights of succession. The entry in Exhibit P. 15 is as follows: "Q. Who is the heir of the estate of a proprietor who dies without leaving any heirs or a Will? Is it Government or 'patti tarf' or 'shamilat deh' etc. or the 'jagirdar'? A. In that event, first the 'pattidars' and after that 'shamilat hasf rasd khewat,' but with the proviso that 'maliks' of 'ghair qom', i. e., 'pattidars' belonging to other tribes will not be entitled. Only the persons belonging to the same tribe as the deceased will share in his estate. The Government or the 'jagirdar' has got no right." Mr. Pandit would read this answer as if the proviso applied only to the second portion of it, i. e., when the inheritance is by the 'shamilat deh,' whereas Mr. Sibal submits that the proviso applies to both.;