Charles A. Turner Kt., C.J.
1. The lands were attached to the office of karnam as its emolument; when the appellant was removed from the office, he lost his right to the land.
2. The circumstance that money may have been expended on the improvements of the land in the expectation that the office with its emolument would be continued to the family, would not give the appellant any title to recover the land in the events that have occurred. When he was removed for misconduct, the office and emoluments were conferred on a stranger, and with the decision of the Revenue authority on that question we cannot interfere. While the office was held by a stranger, the Government resolved to sever the lands from the office and to offer them to the then office holder for enfranchisement; the holder accepted the offer and became the owner.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.