Walsh, J.

1. The appellant is the assignee of a mortgage decree against certain property passed on 20th September 1924. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statements, but they were subsequently declared ex parte. The assignment to the appellant was recognized, but when he went to take out execution defendant 2 raised objections that the land in question was service inam and not alienable. The executing Court, the District Munsifs Court of Srivilliputtur, wrote a very short judgment as follows:

The inam title deed Ex. 2 is proof positive that the inam in question is an enfranchised one. So items 2 to 5 are liable to be sold.

2. It is abundantly clear both from this judgment and from that of the lower appellate Court that the assignee decree-holder contested as a question of fact that this was an enfranchised inam and on the facts the executing Court found in his favour. In the lower appellate Court the learned District Judge held that the executing Court misconstrued the inam title-deed when it construed it as an enfranchised inam. He clearly puts before himself the question he has to decide in para. 4:

The first question to decide is whether the inam is an unenfranchised one and