1. The District Judge has given no finding upon the 1st issue and we must ask him to return a finding thereon. The determination of this issue also necessarily has an important bearing upon the question of adverse possession--M. Seshaya v. Gauramma 4 M.H.C.R. 336.
2. Within the meaning of the Proviso to Section 21 of Act III of 1895 under which section this suit is brought, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree if the lands were never granted as the emoluments of the office or if at the date when Act II of 1894 was extended to the office of Karnam in the estate in question, the emoluments did not appertain to the office by reason of the plaintiff having acquired (under Article 144 of the 2nd schedule and Section 28 of the Limitation Act) title to the lands by adverse pos-session prior to such date up to which date suits in respect of the office of Karnam and the emoluments thereof were cognizable by Civil Courts and governed by the ordinary law of limitation by reason of the last section of Regulation VI of 1831 having excepted from it the office of Karnam in a permanently settled district. In our opinion the ruling of the Privy Council in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram I.L.R. 23 M. 271 is applicable as much to lands alienated by the holder for the time being of the hereditary office of Karnam as to lands alienated by the holder of the here-ditary office of trustee and limitation runs from such date not only against the alienor but also against his immediate and other successors.
3. If the finding on the 1st issue is against the plaintiff, we also request the District Judge to submit a fresh finding upon the 2nd issue with reference to the foregoing observations.
4. We may also point out that the partition deed of 1869 referred to in para. 2 of the District Judge's judgment was between the brothers, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant after the death of their father and not during the father's lifetime, as the Judge appears to think and could not create a separate title in the plaintiff's father and his possession therefore could not have been adverse for that reason to the 1st defendant.'
5. In compliance with the above order the District Judge submitted a finding to the effect that it was not shewn that the suit lands were attached to the office of karnam (1st issue) and with reference to the 1st issue the following was the finding:
3. Issue II. Even if my finding on Issue I had been that the suit lands were at one time attached to the karnam's office, I should have held, in the light of the remarks of the High Court in their order of remand, that the suit lands, having been held by the plaintiff since 1869 (under the partition deed Exhibit A) adversely to the 1st defendant, who was then holding the office, the plaintiff had acquired a right to them by adverse possession. The ruling in M. Seshayya v. Gauramma 4 M.H.C.R. 336 does not seem to me to apply to this case, because in that ruling the plaintiff claimed through a person who had himself been karnam when he dealt with the service inam lands as private property; whereas in this case the plaintiff was never karnam and his contention is that he held the lands in dispute adversely to the bolder of the karnam's Office since 1869.
6. Their Lordships accepting the findings dismissed the second appeal with costs. Ed.