1. There is no point of law in this batch of second appeals except in the few cases noticed below. In A. S. 561 of 1823, the pattadar died in February 1921, and the patta was prepared in May 1921. It is urged by Mr. Subramania Aiyar, for the appellant that the tender of patta with the name of the deceased ryot is not a proper tender of proper patta. But the tender was made on the daughter who was the heir of the pattadar. In the case of a ryot coming under the Madras Estates Land Act the heir stands in the shoes of the ryot and is entitled to bring a suit under Section 112. That being so, there is no force in the argument that the tender made to the heir with the name of the deceased pattadar is bad.
2. With regard to second appeals 1515, 1520 and 1526, it is urged that the learned District Judge was wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground that all the persons interested in the holding did not join in the suit. It is an elementary principle of law that persons who have got joint right should join in an action to assert that right and it is not open to one or two persons who have a joint right along with others to bring a suit for the assertion of that right on behalf of all without joining them as defendants. The judgment of the learned District Judge is correct on this point.
3. With regard to second appeal 1511 there is no question of law.
4. The only other point urged is with regard to vakil's fee in the lower Court. We think the District Judge was right in allowing Rs. 5. as vakil's fee in each case. In this Court we allow a consolidated fee of Rs. 150, for the whole batch. The second appeals are dismissed with costs,