JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This is a defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit kit declaration and in the alternative for possession. 2. Balwant Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. Snit. Mathuri, plain-tiff No. 1, was Balwant Singh's second wife. Roop Chand, plaintiff No. 2, was his son. Defendant No. 1, Tejpal, was the son of Balwant Singh by a previous wife. Manak Chand, the second defendant, is a son of Tejpal i.e., he was the grand-son of Balwant. Singh. On 6-3-1959 Balwant Singh executed a deed of sale transferring the property in dispute in favour of Manak Chand, the second defendant. The two plaintiffs brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale was void because it was without any consideration and the transferor was not in his proper senses when he executed it. In defence, it was pleaded that Smt. Mathuri was not the widow of Balwant Singh and that Roop Chand was not his son. They not having any interest in the property in dispute were not entitled to sue. The sale was for consideration and it was valid and binding. 3. The trial court held that Smt. Mathuri was not the wife of Balwant Singh but Roop Chand was his illegitimate son entitled to inherit. The sale deed was without consideration and was void for the further reason that Balwant Singh was not in a sound disposing mind at the time of its execution. The suit was consequently decreed for declaration and possession lo favour of plaintiff No. 2. The defendants went up in appeal. The lower appellate court has confirmed the findings and the decree. 4. For the appellants it was urged that Roop Chand, plaintiff No. 2, being the illegitimate son was not in law entitled to succeed to the holding in dispute and, consequently, he had no interest in the property so as to entitle him to sue the defendants for declaration or for possession. Succession to the holding in dispute would be governed by Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under clause (a) of that section the male lineal descendant in the male line of descent succeed in equal share per stirpes. Succession to the holding in dispute would be governed by Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under clause (a) of that section the male lineal descendant in the male line of descent succeed in equal share per stirpes. It was urged for the appellants that an illegitimate son is not a male lineal descendant within the meaning of Section 171 (a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The phrase "male line of descent" ought to be construed according to its natural meaning, uninfluenced by the personal law of the tenant, because an agricultural tenant has no religion and no personal law. Reliance was placed upon the following observations of Desai, C. J. in the case Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigunath, 1964 ALJ 197 (202). "An agricultural tenant has no religion and no personal law except as expressly provided in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It applies to Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc. regardless of their religion and, therefore regardless of their personal law except as regards succession in certain cases. It contains its own provisions regarding inheritance and transfers; and when it has left certain mat tern to be governed by the personal law it has done so by an express provision. Personal law has never been applied proprietary vigore to questions of - inheritance and transfer of tenancy rights as it has been applied to inheritance and transfer of pro-prietary rights." 5. The observations, quoted above, were made only in passing; they do not go to suggest that particular words occurring in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be construed in the light of their meaning under the personal law. Moreover, the case of Ramji Dixitl was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1965 decided on 12th June, 1968. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Full Bench, but a reading of the Supreme Court judgment shows that the above-mentioned observations of Desai, C. J. were not assented to or even referred. 6. The law of succession to agricultural tenants has been governed in this State by various Tenancy Acts. The Agra Tenancy Act (II of 1901) in Section 2 contemplated succession to the occupancy holding to the male lineal descendant. 6. The law of succession to agricultural tenants has been governed in this State by various Tenancy Acts. The Agra Tenancy Act (II of 1901) in Section 2 contemplated succession to the occupancy holding to the male lineal descendant. Similarly, the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, also used the same phrase while providing for succession to agricultural tenants. The legislature has used the same phrase in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act while dealing with devolution of the holding of bhumidhars sirdars or (minis. I find that the phrase "male lineal descendant" has been unanimously interpreted to include an illegitimate son of a Hindu Sudra, in a long line of decisions relating to various enactments, mentioned above. 7. In Ram Kali v. Jamna, 1908 Vol 5 ALJ 629 a Division Bench of this Court held that an illegitimate son of a Sudra by a continuous concubine is entitled, in the absence of a legitimate son, to the occupancy holding of his father as a male lineal descendant within the meaning of Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act II of 1901. The decision was based principally upon the reasoning that an illegitimate son of a Sudra is entitled to maintenance from his father and their state is liable for such payment. His status as a son in the family is recognised. Consequently. he is entitled to be treated a lineal descendant. In Baijnath Prasad v. Gur Prasad, 1922 RD 27 the Board of Revenue held that : "There is no doubt that an illegitimate son, like an adopted son can succeed under Section 22 provided that in the community concerned an illegitimate son is capable of succeeding to his father's property. Such a succession is permissible in the Sudra caste." 8. It was held that like Kayasthas of Bihar the Kayasthas of Gorakhpur are also Sudras. To them, this rule of succession was applicable. The Board of Revenue interpreted the phrase "male lineal descendant" occurring in Section 35 (a) , U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, in the same manner. Such a succession is permissible in the Sudra caste." 8. It was held that like Kayasthas of Bihar the Kayasthas of Gorakhpur are also Sudras. To them, this rule of succession was applicable. The Board of Revenue interpreted the phrase "male lineal descendant" occurring in Section 35 (a) , U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, in the same manner. In Mata Prasad v. Bhagwati, 1942 RD 912 the Board of Revenue held that : "An illegitimate son of a Sudra is entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights of his father provided that he is born of a Hindu concubine who has been in continuous and exclusive keeping of his father." The same view was expressed in Sia Rain v. Narain Rao, 1944 RD 266 and Jwala v. Mahadeo, 1949 RD 147. 9. Thus, for the last 60 years the settled view is that an illegitimate son of a Sudra is a male lineal descendant for purposes of succession to agricultural tenants. There is no discordant note in any decided case. In this situation the doctrine of stare decision would be applicable. In Halsbury's Laws of England Second Ed. Vol. XIX p. 257 paragraph 557 the principle has been thus stated : "Apart from any question as to the Court's being of co-ordinate jurisdiction, a decision which has been followed for a long time, and has been acted upon by persons in the formation of contracts or in the disposition of their property, or in the general conduct of affairs, or in legal procedure or in other ways, will generally be followed by courts of higher authority than the court establishing the rule, even though the court before whom the matter arises afterwards might not have given the same decision had the question come before It originally." 10. According to Corpus. Juris Secundum (p. 302 paragraph 187) this doctrine is based on expediency and public policy and generally it should be strictly adhered to. 11. When there is a long course of decisions interpreting a provision relating to succession to property in a particular way the rule of stare decision is properly applicable. As a matter of public policy, it will not be proper to disturb the connotation of the phrase "male lineal descendant" which has been accepted and settled by this Court as well as the Board of Revenue for such a long time. As a matter of public policy, it will not be proper to disturb the connotation of the phrase "male lineal descendant" which has been accepted and settled by this Court as well as the Board of Revenue for such a long time. In my opinion, an illegitimate son of a Sudra is entitled to inherit to a bhumidhar. Roop Chan& plaintiff No. 2, has been found to be an-illegitimate son of Balwant Singh by Mst. Mathuri who resided with Balwant Singh though not as a legally wedded wife. He was, therefore, an illegitimate son by continuous Hindu concubine and could not be excluded from inheritance. As such, he had an legitimate interest in the property in dispute and was entitled to maintain the suit. His suit, therefore, could not be held incompetent. 12. No other point was pressed. 13. The appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.