JUDGMENT 1. The defendants pleaded that the lands were (heir own private inam and that if it should be found (hat their right to hold was burdened with any service to the plaintiff, they were prepared to render the service due. It is contended that these are inconsistent pleas which cannot be combined by the defendants, There is certainly no rule preventing a defendant from raising inconsistent pleas, at any rate, where the facts to which the pleas relate are not within his personal knowledge. The next contention is that as it has been found that the defendants were bound to render service, it must be presumed that the lands in question were held by them as emoluments for rendering service. It is not shown that the Subordinate Judge has based his finding on the ground that there was no such presumption. 2. He comes to the conclusion that on the evidence on record, the lands were held by the defendants merely with the burden of service and not as emoluments for service. He was entitled to arrive at that finding on the evidence on record and the question of onus is immaterial. 3. The last contention urged is that the defendants must be held to have forfeited their right to hold the lands even if they were not merely for emoluments for service, which could be resumed at the plaintiffs will. We are unable to agree with Mr. Ramesam that there is such a denial of the plaintiffs right in Exhibit C as to work as a forfeiture of the defendants right to hold the lands. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.