Curgenven, J.

1. The plaintiff held the office of Karnam, and when he was granted leave the defendant was appointed to act for him. The plaintiff subsequently resigned his post in favour of his minor son, and upon his recommendation the defendant was appointed Karnam gumastha during the minority. As consideration for making that recommendation, the plaintiff obtained from the defendant an agreement for the payment of a sum of Rs. 3 per mensem during the period, 1st May, 1926 to 24th June, 1929. The Small Cause suit out of which this petition arises was to enforce that agreement, and the defence was set up that the consideration was unlawful, being opposed to public policy. The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the claim, disallowing the objection on the ground that the arrangement only amounted to a division of the emoluments between the deputy and the mirasi-holder, i.e., the minor son. This argument does not convince me of the lawful nature of the agreement. The appointment of the defendant as Karnam was made under Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895), which requires that "the Collector shall register the minor as the