1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover possession of two cultivator 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 Patpal Singh. The plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of Patpal Singh. The defendants are his brothers. It has been found that Patpal Singh was the son of one Debi Singh who was a Kshatriya. Patpal Singhs mother was a Shudra and the question is what was the status of Patpal Singh. If he was a Shudra 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 of the Madras High Court. In the case of Brindavana v. Radhamani 12 M. 72PC ; 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 399 it was held that the illegitimate son of a Kshatriya by a Shudra woman is not a Shudra 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 Patpal Singh belonged to a higher caste than that of a Shudra 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.