1. The plaintiff is the holder of an inam of 65 cents, in a ryotwari (or ayan village) of Seevaramperi, belonging to Government. The defendant is his tenant and the suit is for rent. An inamdar, by which I mean the owner of an inam, excluded from the scope of the permanent settlement (and either enfranchised by the Inam Commissioner or not but not the so-called 'darimila inam,' can be governed by the Estates Land Act, only if it is a whole village, and even then only if the conditions of Section 3(2)(d) are satisfied, as to which the onus is on the parson who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. In the present case we have not a case of a whole village. The case in Appalanarasimhulu v. Sanyasi (1915) 38 Mad. 33 related to a subsequent inam, i.e., land granted by a zamindar after the settlement, (a grant before the settlement provided it was included in the assets of the zamindari, stands on the same footing). It did not relate to a case of enfranchised or enfranchisable inam. The case in Gadadhara Das Bavaji v. Suryanarayana Patnaik A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 547 was also a similar case. So also Brahmayya v. Achiraju A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 373. These oases have no bearing on the matter before me. The order of the Subordinate Judge (who thought these cases applied and directed the plaintiff to go to a revenue Court), is set aside and the suit remanded to him for disposal according to law. The respondents will pay the costs of the petition in this Go Article The costs in the lower Court will abide the result.