1. If the plaintiffs have, in fact, suffered any damage from a neglect of a duty imposed by statute on the kamam, they are entitled to bring a suit to recover such damage.
2. Section 11 of Regulation XXV of 1809 does not restrict or take away this right. As regards that portion of the plaintiffs' action, which relates to their claim to remove the kamam from his office, the first question is whether the plaintiffs in their right as lesseos (independently of the clause in their lease purporting to transfer to thorn the right to bring such a suit) can maintain chat portion of their claim. Section 11 clearly gives this power to the zatnindar or proprietor and to no one else. Inasmuch, therefore, as tho plaintiffs' assign ment does not make them proprietors or amindars within the meaning of the Regulation, they cannot sue.
3. Section 5 of Regulation XXIX of 1802 cannot be read as conferring a general right to bring such an action on any person interested, but must be read in conjunction with soction 11 of Regulation XXV already referred to.
4. The next point raised by plaintiffs' counsel was that tho zamindar had, by a special provision in the plaintiffs' lease, assigned to the plaintiffs the right to being a suit to remove karnams and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain this part of their claim.
5. Having regard to the nature of the power in question, we think it was not one which could be transferred. Delegata potest as non potest delegari.
6. We therofore think that plaintiffs cannot maintain so much of their action as relates to the removal of the defendant from his office. The order of the District Judge remanding the suit for trial, so far as the plaintiffs' right to claim for damages is concerned, is right. It must, however, be modified as to the remainder of the claim and the suit to this extent be dismissed.
7. Each party must bear their own costs of this appeal.