( 1 ) THIS writ appeal arises out of a decision rendered by our brother. Obdul Reddi, J, in Writ Petn. No. 806 of 1967 (Andh Pra ). The appeal has been referred to the Full Bench by an order of the Division Bench consisting of Gopal Rao Ekbote and Ramachandra Rao, JJ. , D/- 13-8-1970. The order of reference reads:"this appeal raises some important questions in regard to the Inams Abolition Act and is likely to affect a large number of cases. We therefore feel it necessary to refer it to a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on this important matter. "

( 2 ) BY the order of reference, the whole of the appeal has been referred to us.

( 3 ) TWO questions arise in this appeal and they are: (1) Whether the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act No. 37 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the "inams Abolition Act" effect the effacement of the inam tenure on the date of the passing of the act, or merely enables the conversion of the tenure under the procedure prescribed in the Act; and (2) whether the Act repeals the Madras Hereditary Villages Officers Act, (Act No. III of 1895), hereinafter referred to as "act III of 1895" in regard to Class IV service.

( 4 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants. Yedireswarapu Veeramma and Mortha Manikyamba, respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ petition. filed Summary Suit No. 3 of 1960, on the file of the Court of the Deputy Collector. Kakinada, under section 13 of Act III of 1895. against Reddipalli Surudamma (Respondent No. 1), Kothem Buchinna husband of respondent No. 2. Kothem Mahalakshmamma, and another Reddem Venkataratnamma for recovery of possession of the suit schedule lands alleging that they were the daughters of one Gannavarampu Veeracharyulu who was the original list holder of the carpenter service inam of Pithapuram having succeeded to the service and enjoyment thereof after the death of their mother Venkataratnamma. Respondents 1 and 2 denied the claim of the appellants and contended that the appellants were not residing and rendering service in Pithapuram village. that late Venkataratnamma had executed a registered Kandagutta cowle on 25/01/1951 in favour of the 2nd respondents husband in respect of all the items of the schedule lands and that the Ist respondent, who is the daughter of the 2nd respondent, had purchased ac. 3-50 cents in S. No. 647 (Item 2 of the schedule land) under a registered sale deed for Rupees 4,600/- from the said Venkataratnamma. It is also pleaded that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter by reason of the inam being resumed by the Government and full assessment levied under the Inams Assessment. Act 1955, and also for the reason that the inam was abolished under the Inams abolition Act, and that the authorities constituted under the Inams Abolition Act alone had jurisdiction o decide the question falling for determination within the purview of that act. The deputy Collector decreed the appellants suit on 25/11/1960 holding that the Inams Abolition Act did not effect any change in the tenure of the lands and that Act III of 1985 continued to apply to the said lanes. He also held that the cowle and the sale deed executed by the appellants; mother are not valid in law. The Deputy Collector, therefore, directed respondents 1 and 2 restore possession of the lands to the appellants. Aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Collector Kakinada, the Ist respondent preferred an appeal (S. A. No. 9 of 1961) to the Joint Collector. East Godavari Kakinada under act III of 1895 and the Joint Collector, by a judgment dated 25/10/1961 allowed the appeal on the short ground that the Supreme Court in the case of Dasaratharama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 564 has held that after the passing of the Constitution there can be no hereditary succession to the village offices. It is the case of the appellants that Buchinna. the 2nd respondents husband, die