The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Pensions Act, Regulation VI of 1831, and Act III of 1895 did not deprive the civil courts of jurisdiction to try the suit, as the lands in question were not emoluments of the office of Karnam.

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 finding can be interfered with in Second Appeal. The Lower Appellate Court relied upon Ex. A a register of inams prepared in the year 1790 in which the lands are not shown to be Karnam inam lands. It is argued that the Subordinate Judge misconstrued Ex. A and understood it as showing that the lands were Archaka Inam lands. We do not think that the Subordinate Judge has committed any error in the construction of the document. He observes, plaintiffs grand-father Venkamarazu,worshipper of God is described in it as the hereditary grantee of 4j Kuchalas of land as maniam. This observation is quite correct and it is quite clear that Ex. A. is consistent with the land being Karnam inam. He observes only that he is described as a hereditary grantee and it is not stated as holding the land as Karnam Service Inam. Assuming that Ex. VI is in favour of the appellants contention the Subordinate Judge has taken the document into consideration and given it such weight as in his opinion it deserves. It does not appear that Government took any final action on the statement contained in Ex. VI. At any rate we cannot hold that the appellate court was bound to act on the contents of Ex. VI. We must therefore accept the finding that the lands belong to the plaintiffs and are not Karnam service inam lands.

2. The next question argued is that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This argument is based on two grounds. The first ground is that Section 4 of the Pensions Act applies. That section enacts that no civil court shall entertain any suit relating to any grant of land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such... grant and whatever may have been the nature of payment, claim or right for which such grant may have been substituted." It was not th plaintiffs case nor the case of defendants that inam whether it be a Karnam service itiam or some other kind of inam consisted of land revenue. The plaintiffs alleged that the land itself is maniam and this position was not contested by any of the defendants. The suit is therefore not one relating to any grant of land revenue. The learned Government Pleader argues that when the land is granted the land-revenue is part of the grant and so far as the melvaram right is concerned the suit is not cognizable by the civil courts without a certificate from the Collector; but there is nothing to show that in the hands of the Government before the grant of the Inam the land-was treated as liable for the payment of land revenue or that the Government intended to split up its ownership into melvaram and kudivaram or to make a distinct grant of the land revenue. The Government Pleader does not deny that the decisions of the High Courts would