Burn, J.

1. The decisions of the lower Courts are clearly wrong. The suit in this case was one in which the plaintiff claimed two reliefs (1) a declaration that the first defendants appointment as karnam of Kondampatti was illegal and (2) registry of his own name as holder of the office of karnam. The office of karnam in Kondampatti is hereditary and the plaintiffs case was based on the allegation that he was the nearest heir to one Krishnamurthi the last registered office-holder. This suit was exactly a suit of the kind described in Section 13(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895). Consequently the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred by Section 21 of the Act (III of 1895).

2. It makes no difference that the first defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff. The lower courts have been led astray by the decision in Ramakrishnayya v. Venkataranga Rao (1932)63MLJ577 . That was a case in which a certain hereditary office had been abolished under Section 6(1) of the Act. The section itself provides that where villages are grouped etc., the hereditary offices in them shall cease to exist and new hereditary offices shall be created. Hence,