Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
1. It is a general principle that a person filling an office cannot aliene the emoluments of the office to the prejudice of his successors, and there is authority for holding that the lands attached to the office of karnam in permanently-settled estates cannot be alienated by the holder of the office, notwithstanding that Regulation XXIX of 1802 does not contain a prohibitory provision similar to that which is found in Regulation VI of 1831, M. Seshaiya v. M. Gauvamma 4 M.H.C.R. 336 Diggavelly Parummah v. Goontamookala Surrauze 1 M.S.D. 214 (Select decrees, 1 of 1819) Vencatoovien v. Vencataramyen 2 M.S.D. 85 (Select decrees, 1 of 1844).
2. The alienation made by the father of the second and third appellants cannot bind his successor, and the suit has been brought within twelve years from the date when the succession to the office devolved on the second and third appellants.
3. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court, in so far as it subjects the restoration of possession of the land claimed to the condition that Rs. 275 and costs be paid, and in so far as it orders payment of costs by the appellants, and in so far as it affirms the decree of the Court of First Instance dismissing the claim for mesne profits, is reversed; and the claim for mesne profits from 1878 to recovery of possession as well as for possession is decreed with costs in all Courts; the amount of mesne profits will be ascertained in execution of decree.