The main legal principle established in the judgment is that land grants for public service were excluded from the Permanent Settlement and could be enfranchised by the Government under Section 17, Madras Act 2 of 1894.

Ramesam, J.

1. These appeals arise cut of suits filed by the Zamindar of Chintalapativantu, also called Mukthyala, against the Secy. of State for India praying for a decree establishing the plaintiffs right of resumption over the suit lands, for possession and for loss of profits. Defendant 1 is the Secy. of State. Defendant 2 is the karnam of the suit village in each of the cases. The question of fact and law arising in both suits are similar. They were tried together in the lower Court and also heard together here. For convenience, I shall refer to one of the suits throughout this judgment, namely O.S. No. 27 of 1920, the subject of Appeal No. 245 of 1922, relating to. the village of Peddavaram. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land was granted by the plaintiffs ancestors to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 4 subsequent to the Permanent Settlement as service inam on condition of rendering private service, namely, to work as gumasthas to write the private accounts and render other private work, and on condition that the lands may be resumed on failure to render service. The suit lands were enfranchised by the Inam Deputy Collector under Section 17, Madras Act 2 of 1894, in the year 1909. Ever since defendants 2 to 4 have ceased to render service to the zamindar. From the year 1911, the defendants are paying quit rent to the Government. The plaintiff passed an order resuming the lands and calling upon the defendants to deliver possession to him and as he did not obtain possession, the present suit was filed on 1st March 1920. Defendant 1 contended that the suit lands were pre-settlement grants excluded from the assets of the zemindari at the time of the permanent settlement and afterwards continued by the Government. They were rightly enfranchised under Madras Act 2 of 1894. He also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit. He found that the plaintiff has not made out the specific case attempted to be proved by him, namely, that they were granted by plaintiffs ancestors in fasli 1244. He found that the suit lands were granted prior to the Permanent Settlement but he also found that they were granted for private service and not for public services and therefore that they were not excluded from the zamindari at the time of the settlement. He found on issue 4 that the lands were not continued by the Government and that the provisions of Act 2 of 1894 did not apply. He therefore held that the plaintiff is entitled to resume the lands. He also found on 3rd issue that the suit is not barred by limitation. He therefore decreed the plaintiffs suit. Defendant 1, the Secy. of State, appeals.

2. In appeal, the question whether the lands were granted prior to the Settlement or not was again fully argued as the respondent would not accept the Subordinate Judges finding. On this point, I see no reason to differ from the finding of the Subordinate Judge. (His Lordship dealt with the evidence in detail and concluded as follows). 1 therefore find agreeing with the finding of the lower Court that the suit lands were granted for karnams service prior to 1802.

3. The next question that arises in the case is what is the effect? of the Permanent Settlement on the karnams inams? We have first got Ex. 26, an extract from the report of the Circuit Committee which was appointed sometime in 1744 and which reported in 1787. This report contains an abstract of accounts relating to various zamindaris including the suit zamindari. We think the Subordinate Judge has misread Ex. 26. The document contains the general heading jiroyati villages, average of eight years including village saderwary This was in a printed form. The income of the villages was given under this heading but as a matter of fact for this zamindari the village saderwary was not included in the Government collections, and the figure of 36,635 did not include the village saderwary. By " village saderwary " is meant the income fr