Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for possession. The suit relates to the inheritance of the property of one Sunder Singh a Bath Jat of village Bathan. He died issueless leaving his widow Mst Bhagwani who also died on 16 -8 -1990 Bk. Out of the suit land 88 big has and 14 bis was is under mortgage with possession with Defendants No. 2 and 20 big has and 10 bis was with a share in the Shamilat is under mortgage with Defendants No. 3. The remaining land measuring 46 big has and 8 bis was is in possession of the State Government through the tenants who pay rent to the Govern -ment. After the death of Mat. Bhagwani the Government entered into possession of this land as Sunder Singh had left no heir and the property escheated to the State. The Plaintiffs instituted the present suit for possession of the entire land on the basis of their toeing collaterals as well as Pattidars of the last male holder. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for a declaration that they are entitled to receive the rent of the land in question from the Defendants. They have also sued for the recovery of Rs. 1200/ -the rent already realized by the Government from this land. As already observed their claim is based on the following two grounds: 1. That they are collaterals of Sunder Singh deceased and
(2.) THAT in any case they being Pattidars of the Patti in which the suit property lies and the Patti being homogeneous were entitled to the suit land to the exclusion of the Defendants. 2. The Plaintiffs' suit was resisted by the Government as well as the mortgagees. They pleaded that the Plaintiffs were not the collaterals of Sunder Singh deceased and that as Pattidars they were not entitled to succeed to his' inheritance. The Government pleaded that the land had escheated to them. The mortgagees further pleaded that some other owners in the Patti who are not made parties were necessary parties and according to their objection the Plaintiffs' suit on that account was not maintainable. The following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether Chhajju etc., etc., are necessary parties? On Defendants. 2. Whether the Plaintiffs can institute the suit with respect of the whole of the land in dispute? On Plaintiffs. Whether the Plaintiffs are Pattidars and heirs of Mst. Bhagwani and entitled as such to the possession of the land, mesne profits and the declaration sought for On Plaintiffs.
(3.) WHETHER this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case? On Defendants. 3. The trial Court found that the Pattidars who were not impleaded were not necessary parties to the suit and the Plaintiffs if they succeeded in the suit could claim their own share of the disputed land. The Court also found that the plain -tiffs had failed to prove their collateral relation -ship with the last male holder Sunder Singh. The Plaintiffs according to the finding of the Court also failed to prove custom under which they were entitled to succeed to the inheritance of Sunder Singh deceased as Pattidars. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court appealed to the District Judge. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiffs on the ground that they had failed to prove their relationship with Sunder Singh the last male holder of the property in dispute and that they had also failed to prove custom in their favour entitling them to succeed to this property as Pattidars. He, however, found that the Plaintiffs had succeeded in showing that there was a community of interest among the Bath Jets of this Patti and thus they were a homogeneous community in the Patti. As a result he dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs as they had failed to prove custom in their favour entitling them to inherit the property in dispute as Pattidars. The Plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants at the outset conceded that the Appellants had failed to prove their relationship with Sunder Singh whose inheritance is in question. The learned District Judge has already found that the Plaintiffs are not collaterals of the last male holder. In view of the position taken up by the learned Counsel for the Appellants this point need not be pursued further.;