1. The question raised in these appeals relates to the nature and effect of the grant under the Original of Ex. D-1.

2. Two suits were filed in the Lower Court, O.S. No. 13 of 1942 and O.S. No. 17 of 1942. The judgment under appeal refers to the array of the parties in the later suit and we shall do the same.

3. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 17 of 1942 filed the suit for a declaration that the usufructuary mortgage held by them under Ex. P-1 over the village of Irungattu-kottai is valid and binding on the defendants 1 to 5. The mortgagors are the first defendant, second defendant and Sriramulu Naidu, the father of defendants 3, 4 and 5. The other suit O.S. No. 13 of 1942 was filed by the sons of Sriramulu Naidu against the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 17 of 1942 for an account of their one-third share in the income realised from the suit village on the footing that the document executed by their father Sriramulu and his two brothers is not binding on them. The two suits raise substantially the same question. The lower Court decreed O.S. No. 13 of 1942. O.S. No. 17 of 1942 was decreed against defendants 1 and 2 and they do not appeal. It was dismissed against defendants 3 to 5 who are the plaintiffs in the other suit. These appeals are directed against the decrees granting relief to Sriramulu Naidus sons.

4. The village in question was held by the ancestors of respondents 1 to 3 under a service tenure referred to as mokhasa tenure, the service being providing the necesary police force for keeping peace and order in the country. The service holders known as palayagars were entitled to hold and enjoy the villages allotted to them so long as they provided the necessary police force. This system was found to be unsatisfactory and was therefore abolished and regular police establishment paid by the Government and working directly under the Government was introduced. As the service was otherwise provided for, the authorities granted the villages till then held on service tenure on certain terms. The grant of the suit village made by the then Governor in Council is evidenced by Ex. D-1. It was granted to one Sriram Singam Naick, the ancestor of respondents 1 to 3. Bhas-karayya Naidu a descendant of Sriram Singam Naick was in possession of the village and he died leaving three sons Sreeramulu Naidu (the father of Respondents 1 to 3), Gopalaswami Naidu and Audikesavalu Naidu who were defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 17 of 1942, but who are not respondents in the appeal against the decree in that suit. The common question that arises in all these appeals is What is the nature of the interest created under the original of Ex. D-1?

The document is a short one and may be set out in full. It runs thus:

Puruvannah granted by the Right Honourable Edward Lord Clive Baron Clive of Walcot in the county of Salop, and Baron Plassy of the Kingdom of Ireland, Governor in Council of Ft. St. George, on the part of the Honble the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies to Streeram Singam Naick, late a Poligar of the District of Tripassore in the Honourable Companys Jagheer. Experience having shown that the Police of jagheer under the charge of the Poligars and Cavilgars has been inadequate to the prevention of crimes, or the apprehension of offenders, the Right Honble the Governor in Council has determined to abolish that system;

To resume the fees appropriated to the support of it; and to introduce a general reform of the Police Department. In consideration of the loss to which persons employed in the system of Police will be in consequence subjected, His Lordship in Council has resolved to compensate that by confirming the villages they formerly held on moccassah tenure, to them, and their heirs on shrotrium tenure.

2. In consequence of the foregoing resolution, the Governor in Council confers on you the village of Errongaud Cottah in the Zamindary of Streeperumbudoor on Shrotrium tenure chargeable with an annual rent of Pagodas 50 (f