1. The plaintiffs in this suit claim to recover certain lands as belonging to them as an inam for the Archakathnam or worship of a family deity. They allege that they were dispossessed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in execution of a decree of the revenue court in S.S. No. 1 of 1891. They impeach the decree as one passed without jurisdiction by the Revenue Court and therefore not affecting their rights. The 15th defendant is the Secretary of state for India in Council and was impleaded as a party in consequence of the contention raised by defendants Nos. 1 to 3. They allege that the hinds appertain to the office of Karnam which is held by the 1st defendant and that plaintiffs have no right to recover them. They also deny the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the suit. It is also contended that the plaintiffs right is res judicata in consequence of the decision in S.S. No. 1 of 1891. A question of limitation was also raised in the lower courts but has not been argued before us. Both the courts have found that the lands are not Karnam service inam lands and that the the plaintiffs are owners. This finding has been attacked before us but we are unable to agree that the