Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Kavali dated 18th May 1925, appointing the defendant as karnam of Somavarappadu, is ultra vires and does not bind him.

2. On a vacancy arising in the office of karnam in the proprietary village of Somavarappadu, the proprietor appointed the plaintiff to the office by his order dated 9th December 1924 and sent notice of the appointment as required by the Act (Act 2 of 1894) to the revenue divisional officer, Kavali. On the ground that he is a nearer heir the defendant, a minor by his guardian, applied to the revenue "divisional officer praying that he should be appointed as the karnam. On 18th May 1925 the revenue divisional officer disallowed the appointment of the plaintiff as karnam holding that the defendant was the next heir to the office and directed the registration of his name as heir to the last holder of the office.

3. The plaintiffs case is that the order of the revenue divisional officer is illegal and ultra vires, and he prays for its cancellation.

4. The defendants case is : (1