1. In the year 1839 a village called Atchampalem was granted by the Zamindar of Nuzvid to the ancestors of the first three defendants. They were to pay a kist of Rs. 34 a year and to maintain fifteen peons to watch the frontier bordering on the Nizams territory. The 8th and 6th defendants were admitted as tenants by the Inamdars some time before 1913. In 1918 the Zamindar resumed the grant as the service was not being performed and issued an ordinary ryoti puttah to the first three defendants. In 1920 the plaintiff, who was admittedly aware of the resumption, took a conveyance of their interest from the 5th and 6th defendants and, as a result, claims to have a right of permanent occupancy in the suit village.

2. The Lower Appellate Court found that the grant was one made in lieu of wages and therefore resumable. It also found that the first three defendants were landholders within the meaning of the Estates Land Act and that the village was an estate, also within the meaning of that Act. These findings we see no reason to reject. Substantially the question for decision is whether the 5th and 6th defendants acquired, by virtue of the Act, a right of permanent occupancy in the