JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, landholders, for the ejectment of the appellants, from a holding of which one Raghunath Jati was the occupancy tenant. He died about three years before the institution of the suit, and after his death the defendants-appellants took possession of the holding. They allege that they are the sons and chelas of the deceased, and that the holding has devolved on them. It is clear that having regard to the provisions of section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act they could not succeed to the holding in their capacity as chelas. They, however, claim to be the sons and lineal descendants of the deceased and, as such, they assert that they are entitled to succeed to the holding. It has been found that they are the sons of Raghunath Jati who was an ascetic. 2. The learned Judge has also found that it was not established that the mother of the appellants was married to Raghunath Jati and that they are therefore the illegitimate sons of the deceased. Raghunath Jati was, as I have said above, an ascetic Mathdhari. He was not a Sudra. At least it has not been established that he belonged to that caste. Therefore his illegitimate sons are not his heirs and could not succeed to his holding as such. Section 22, clause (a) of the Agra Tenancy Act clearly contemplates legitimate lineal descendant in the male line of descent. The defendants, therefore, are not entitled to the holding, and they have no right to remain in possession of it, as held by the courts below I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.