Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises is barred by Section 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act. The facts are few and not in dispute. The office of the Village Munsif of Peruru became vacant in 1928 consequent on the resignation of the first defendant. The second defendant was put forward as the adopted son of the. first defendant, but the plaintiffs father opposed his claim on the ground that he was entitled to succeed thereto because the first defendant, the plaintiffs father and the natural father of the second defendant were brothers and sons of the same father. The revenue authorities referred the plaintiffs father to a Court of law. The plaintiffs father subsequently died and thereupon the plaintiff filed this suit for a declaration that the second defendant was not the adopted son of the first defendant. Both the Courts below have held that the suit is maintainable.

2. Mr. Lakshmanna on behalf of the second defendant (appellant) contends that under Section 21 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act the present suit is excluded from the cognizance of a Civil Court. The quest