Judgement Appeal (No. 80 of 1919) from a judgment and decree (February 18, 1918) of the High Court, reversing a decree of the District Judge of Madura. The suit was instituted by the appellant, his brother being joined as a plaintiff, against the respondent company and other defendants, for possession of certain villages and for mesne profits. The villages appertained to the paleiyam of Kannivadi in the Madura district. In 1895 the palegar had mortgaged the paleiyam to a bank, who brought the villages to sale under a mortgage decree and became purchasers. There had been no permanent settlement of the lands till Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 18 1905, when they were settled upon the bank. The respondent company acquired from the bank. The plaint based the claim against the respondents upon the following allegations That the Kannivadi paleiyam was an ancient impartible estate descendible to a single heir according to the custom of primogeniture ; that it was one of the principal Dindigul paleiyams and was originally conferred as a military fief upon an ancestor of the appellant during the time of the Nayak rulers of Madura ; and had been held by his predecessors in title subject to the obligation of rendering military and police services to the rulers of the country from the year 1560 onwards ; that it had never been enfranchised by Government from these conditions of service, and, having regard to these conditions, and the family custom which came into existence in consequence of them, the properties of the paleiyam were inalienable by the palegar for the time being beyond the term of his own life; that, except for their own respective lives, the appellants father and grandfather had no right to alienate or incumber the properties of the paleiyam, and that the appellant was therefore in no way bound by the mortgage and sale to the bank; and the appellant submitted that he was therefore entitled to recover the properties from the respondents. The respondent company by their written statement denied that the paleiyam was inalienable and the facts upon which that contention was based, and contended that the palegar was legally competent to alienate the properties in dispute. The case was transferred for trial to the District Judge. The respondent company by their written statement denied that the paleiyam was inalienable and the facts upon which that contention was based, and contended that the palegar was legally competent to alienate the properties in dispute. The case was transferred for trial to the District Judge. Among numerous issues framed the following only were relevant to this appeal (10.) Whether the plaint mentioned (Sic.) zamindari is inalienable either by custom or by virtue of its tenure ? (22.) Whether the zamindari was held by the ancestors of the plaintiffs on the tenure and conditions alleged in paras. 4, 5, 6 of the plaint ? (23.) Whether the estate was held or continued to be held on condition of military service and police duties as before the establishment of the British rule as alleged in para. 5 of the plaint, or whether, as alleged in para. 18 of the first defendants written statement, it was held on ordinary zamindari tenure on conditions as are contained in the sanad of 1905 ? At the trial a large body of documentary evidence was adduced ; the case made by the plaintiffs was based, not upon custom, but upon the nature of the tenure. The District Judge by his judgment delivered on September 11, 1916, found that up to the time of British rule the estate was held subject to military and police duties, and that finding was affirmed by the High Court. He further found that the paleiyam was restored by the British to the palegar on the same terms as before, and that for some time military and police services were rendered. He held that the proclamation of December 9, 1801, did not abolish military service, but that its effect was that until a permanent settlement took place (which in this case was not till after the alienation) the tenure continued to be subject to military duties ; and that after the proclamation the palegars did render military service. With regard to police service (kaval), he held that by a regulation of 1802 the Government declared that they charged themselves with the police duties, and fees ceased to be paid, yet the duty to do kaval remained ; that duty was removed in 1816 but, as no fresh sanads were granted the tenure was not altered. With regard to police service (kaval), he held that by a regulation of 1802 the Government declared that they charged themselves with the police duties, and fees ceased to be paid, yet the duty to do kaval remained ; that duty was removed in 1816 but, as no fresh sanads were granted the tenure was not altered. He accordingly answered the issues above set out in favour of the plaintiffs, and made a decree in favour of the appellant. The present respondents appealed to the High Court which reversed the decision of the District Judge, and dismissed the suit. The judgment of the Court (Sir John Wallis C.J. and Spencer J.) was delivered by the Chief Justice, and is fully reported at I. L. R. 41 M. 749. Shortly stated it was held that although it was well established that lands held on service tenure were inalienable beyond the lifetime of the holder, the authorities showed that when the holders of an estate were freed from the duty to perform the service the lands became subject to the ordinary laws of descent and disposal; and that an Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 19 unsettled paleiyam in the Presidency of Madras resembled a zamindari in its character, and was alienable for the debts of the holder or a previous holder, so as to bind the successors. The learned Chief Justice, after discussing the evidence, said that there was no doubt that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held before British rule as a military service tenure, but he held that the proclamation of the Governor on December 9, 1801, unconditionally suppressed military service in connection with the holding of land in Madura, dissenting from the view of the trial judge. With regard to the alleged police service tenure, it was held that services of that nature were abolished pursuant to Mad. Regs. XXV. of 1802, XI. of 1816, Act XXIV. of 1859, Act XVII. of 1862, and Mad. Act III. of 1895. It was accordingly held that the paleiyam was not in its nature inalienable, and other contentions raised being rejected, the appeal was allowed. 1921. Feb. 5. Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the appellant. The estate was inalienable beyond the life of the holder by virtue of being held for military and police services. Act III. of 1895. It was accordingly held that the paleiyam was not in its nature inalienable, and other contentions raised being rejected, the appeal was allowed. 1921. Feb. 5. Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the appellant. The estate was inalienable beyond the life of the holder by virtue of being held for military and police services. The inalienability of lands so held is well established see Maynes Hindu Law, 8th ed., para. 338, and cases there cited. The decision of the Board in Collector of Trichinopoly v. Lekkamani (( 1874) L. R. 1 I. A. 282.) referred to an unsettled paleiyam ; it, however, laid down no general rule as to the tenure, but stated that in such case its nature depended upon the evidence. It was here found in both Courts that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held before British rule for military and police services, and the trial judge rightly held that that tenure was continuing at the date of the alleged alienation. Upon the true construction of the Proclamation of February 13, 1801, military service in the Madura District was to be abolished only upon the making of a permanent settlement of the lands so held. The Madras legislation relied on as terminating private police service did not alter the tenure. The evidence shows that the military services were required and rendered after 1801, and that the Government recognized that the paleiyam was held for military services. In India the existence of a particular office has never been held to be necessary in order to establish a service tenure; e.g. the case of ghatwals. Upon the view of the law in Madras prior to Sartaj Kuaris Case (( 1888) L. R. 15 I. A. 51.) it was never necessary to raise the present contention with regard to a paleiyam, hence the absence of any analogous case. [Reference was also made to the Naragunty Case (( 1861) 9 Moo. I. A. 66.) and to Mad. Reg. XXV. of 1802.] De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondents were not called upon. March 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN EDGE. This is an appeal from a decree, dated February 18, 1918, of the High Court at Madras, which reversed a decree dated September II, 1916, of the District Judge of Madura. XXV. of 1802.] De Gruyther K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondents were not called upon. March 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN EDGE. This is an appeal from a decree, dated February 18, 1918, of the High Court at Madras, which reversed a decree dated September II, 1916, of the District Judge of Madura. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought to obtain, so far as is now material, against the Midnapore Zamindari Co., Ld., hereinafter referred to as the respondent company a decree for possession of the properties specified in schedules A and C of the plaint, and for mesne profits. The properties claimed were villages of the paleiyam of Kannivadi. The suit was brought by two brothers, sons by different wives of the late Malayandi Appaya Naicker, a Hindu, one of whom only could have obtained a decree if their case had been proved. The first plaintiff on the record was Malayandi Appayasami Naicker, who was the son of Malayandi Appaya Naicker by his first or senior wife; he is the appellant here, and will be hereafter referred to as the appellant. The second plaintiff on the record was the son of Malayandi Appaya Naicker by his second or junior wife, and is by date of birth the elder of the two brothers. They were obviously joined as plaintiffs, owing to some doubt as to which of them was entitled, on the death of their father in 1911, to succeed to the paleiyam by the custom of Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 20 primo geniture applicable in the family. The second plaintiff did not appear and was not represented in the High Court, and he is not a party to this appeal, so need not again be referred to. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 20 primo geniture applicable in the family. The second plaintiff did not appear and was not represented in the High Court, and he is not a party to this appeal, so need not again be referred to. In the plaint it was alleged that the paleiyam of Kannivadi is an ancient impartible paleiyam, descendible to a single heir according to the custom of primogeniture ; that the paleiyam was conferred as a military fief by a Nayak ruler of Madura about A.D. 1500 upon an ancestor of the appellant who was placed in charge of one of the principal bastions of Madura fort; that the palegar was by virtue of the tenure liable to be called upon to render military service by furnishing men and other aid, and for police duties and to pay annual tribute to the State ; that the paleiyam continued to be held by the appellants family under the same conditions of tenure and service after the assumption of the Dindigul country by the British; and " that the said Kannivadi paleiyam is inalienable beyond the life of the palegar for the time being, both by reason of the tenure and according to the custom of the family, which custom came into existence in consequence of the character of the tenure." Briefly stated, the connection of the respondent company with the paleiyam of Kannivadi according to the allegations in plaint is. as follows The grandfather and father of the appellant in 1895 mortgaged the paleiyam to the Commercial Bank, Ld., of Madras, in respect of debts of theirs which were not binding upon the appellant or upon the paleiyam ; on that mortgage the bank obtained a decree, and in execution of that decree, brought the paleiyam to sale at auction, and at the sales purchased the estate in 1900, and on January 8, 1909, conveyed all their rights under the decree and under the auction sales to the respondent company, who have since then been in possession. Various other mutters were alleged in the plaint as to which no arguments were addressed to their Lordships by either side. Various other mutters were alleged in the plaint as to which no arguments were addressed to their Lordships by either side. The respondent company in their written statement admitted that the zamindari of Kannivadi was at the time of the sale to the bank impartible and was descendible to a single heir according to the custom of primogeniture, but they denied that it had been conferred upon an ancestor of the appellant " for being in charge of a bastion of the Madura fort " ; denied that the estate had been granted or was ever held subject to any obligation of rendering military or police service, or was inalienable, or that the zamindar had ever held any office by virtue of which he was under any obligation to perform military or police duties ; denied that there is any family custom or anything in the tenure of the Kannivadi zamindari which rendered it inalienable beyond the life of the palegar and alleged that in law the zamindar for the time being of the Kannivadi zamindari always possessed an absolute interest in it with full powers of alienation. The respondent company in their written statement pleaded several other matters, which in the view that their Lordships take of the case are not now necessary to be considered. There were twenty-seven issues fixed for the trial of the suit, but in their Lordships opinion, the tenth issue was m the circumstances that upon which the decision of this appeal depends. It was "10. Whether the plaint mentioned zamindari is inalienable either by custom or by virtue of its tenure ?" If it was not inalienable either by custom or by reason of its tenure the palegar for the time was entitled to mortgage or to transfer absolutely every village in the paleiyam according to his pleasure. That is the result of the decisions of the Board in cases of impartible estates in India which descend according to a custom of primogeniture. Until the law on this subject was placed by decisions of the Board beyond a doubt there was a current of judicial decisions in the presidency of Madras to the effect that a holder of an impartible estate which descended by a rule of primogeniture could not transfer except for his own lifetime any part of the estate unless possibly for necessity. Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 21 The suit was tried by the District Judge of Madura. The District Judge states in his judgment that " The plaintiffs base their case not on custom but on the military and police nature of the tenure and rely on the decision in I. L. R. 10 A. 288, to establish that if such is its tenure it (the estate) is inalienable.....A distinction is also sought to be drawn between the present case and others in that in them there was a permanent settlement, whereas in the present case the estate was an unsettled paleiyam till the Bank obtained a permanent sanad in 1905 from the Government." The District Judge, after an elaborate consideration of all the historical references to the family to which the appellant here belonged, and of reports and proceedings of officers of the Government, came to the conclusion that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held down to 1816 for police as well as military service, and that although by 1816 the Government had removed from the palegar the duty of police services, the Government had not by the grant of a zamindari sanad altered the tenure by which the paleiyam was held. His final conclusion on the tenth issue is thus expressed "It seems to me, therefore, that as I have held the paleiyam to have been held on a military and kaval (police) tenure, that as it had never been settled and as there was no express putting an end to the military liabilities, the estate must be held to have been held on the old tenure up to the grant of the sanad in 1905 to the bank, and that therefore up to that date the estate was inalienable. This is my finding on issue 10." The District Judge made a decree in favour of the appellant here, against the respondent company. From that decree the respondent company appealed to the High Court at Madras. The High Court in dealing with the appeal considered separately the question whether the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held on military service tenure, and the question whether it was held on a tenure of performing for the State police duties. Their Lordships will adopt the same course in dealing with this appeal. The High Court in dealing with the appeal considered separately the question whether the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held on military service tenure, and the question whether it was held on a tenure of performing for the State police duties. Their Lordships will adopt the same course in dealing with this appeal. The learned judges in their judgment referred to the fact that the Board in Naragunty Luchmedavamah v. Vengama Naidoo (9 Moo. I. A. 66.), which related to the Naragunty paleiyam in the District of Chittore in the Presidency of Madras, had accepted as correct the explanation in Wilsons Glossary that palegars were originally petty chieftains occupying usually tracts of hills or forest country subject to pay tribute and service to the paramount State, but seldom paying either, and more or less independent; but as having at present, since the subjugation of the country by the East India Company, subsided into peaceable landholders. With reference to that description the learned judges found that " There can be no doubt that Kannivadi was a paleiyam of this nature." It has not been suggested at the hearing of this appeal that that conclusion of the High Court was not correct. The High Court do not state when the paleiyam of Kannivadi was first granted to an ancestor of the appellant; there was not on the record any reliable evidence on that point, but they obviously and rightly considered that the grant had been made before Dindigul, in which district Kannivadi is situated, was ceded to the East India Company by the treaty of Seringapatam, 1792. It may be accepted as a fact that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was originally held on military service tenure and subject to the payment of a tribute to the paramount power. Where lands in British India are held on military service tenure, there is good reason for holding that " no one of the successive tenants could deal with the land so as to deprive the next holder of the source from which his duties might be discharged" see Maynes Hindu Law, para. 337. " A paleiyam is in the nature of a raj, it may belong to an undivided family, but it is not the subject of partition ; it can be held by only one member of the family at a time" see the Naragunty Case (9 Moo. I. A. 66.) cited above. 337. " A paleiyam is in the nature of a raj, it may belong to an undivided family, but it is not the subject of partition ; it can be held by only one member of the family at a time" see the Naragunty Case (9 Moo. I. A. 66.) cited above. The question, so far as it depends on military service tenure is concerned, is— did the paleiyam continue to be held on military service tenure when the mortgage to the bank was made in 1895 ? The High Court held that the military service of palegars of the Madura and Tinnevelly districts was abolished in 1801 by the proclamation of December 1, 1801, of Lord Clive, Governor in Council. Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 22 On October 2, 1799, in consequence of a rebellion which had been fomented and supported by palegars of the Tinnevelly district, Major Bannerman, as military commandant of the Southern Detachment, had been obliged to issue a proclamation to the palegars, landholders and inhabitants of the Tinnevelly district, ordering the palegars to destroy all forts in their paleiyams and to deliver f1all guns, gingal pieces, firelocks, matchlocks and pikes in their possession, or in the possession of any of the inhabitants, to the military detachments sent to receive them. The Court of Directors in their letter of February 11, 1801, to Fort St. George (the Government of Madras), sanctioned the gradual introduction of a permanent land settlement in the Presidency, but laid down that it was of first importance that " all subordinate military establishments should be annihilated within the limits subject to the dominions of the Company." That must have meant that military service tenures should be abolished in the districts subordinate to Fort St. George. In consequence of those orders of February 11, 1801, Lord Clive, Governor in Council, issued the proclamation of December 1, 1801, which was addressed to the palegars of the Madura and Tinnevelly districts. That proclamation referred to a proclamation of December 9, 1799, of the Governor in Council of Fort St. George addressed to the palegars of Tinnevelly and to a rebellion excited and maintained in arms by palegars of Panchalam Kurishi and of Virupakshi and by the sherogars of Sivaganga. That proclamation referred to a proclamation of December 9, 1799, of the Governor in Council of Fort St. George addressed to the palegars of Tinnevelly and to a rebellion excited and maintained in arms by palegars of Panchalam Kurishi and of Virupakshi and by the sherogars of Sivaganga. The following paragraphs of the proclamation of December 1, 1801, show clearly what the Government of Fort St. George intended " Wherefore the Right Honourable Edward Lord Clive, Governor in Council, aforesaid, with the view of pre venting the recurrence of the fatal evils which have attended the possession of arms by the palegars and sherogars of the southern provinces and with the view also of enforcing the conditions of the Proclamation published by Major Bannerman on the 2nd October, 1799, formally announces to the palegars, sherogars and inhabitants of the southern provinces the positive determination of His Lordship in Council to suppress the use and exercise of all weapons of offence with the exception of such as shall be authorized by the British Government. "The military service heretofore rendered by the palegars and sherogars having been suppressed and the Company having in consequence charged itself with the protection and defence of the palegar countries, the possession of fire arms and weapons of offence is manifestly become unnecessary to the safety of people. The Right Honourable the Governor in Council therefore orders and directs all persons possessed of arms in the provinces of Dindigul, Tinnevelly, Ramnadpuram, Sivaganga, and Madura to deliver the said arms consisting of muskets, matchlocks, pikes (to ?) Lieutenant-Colonel Agnew, the officer now commanding the forces in those provinces. “It is unnecessary to assure the people of the southern provinces that the Right Honourable the Governor in Council in the determination of carding this resolution into effect can be governed by no other motives than those connected with the sacred duty of providing for the permanent tranquillity of those countries. His Lordship disclaims every wish of subjecting the chiefs and hereditary landlords to any humiliation, but the discontinuance of the general use of arms according to the prevailing habits of those countries being indispensably necessary to the preservation of peace and to the restoration of prosperity, the Governor in Council hopes that the chieftains will with cheerfulness sacrifice a custom now become useless to the attainment of those important objects. " With a view therefore of tempering the execution of their general resolution with as great a degree of attention as may be practicable to the hereditary customs and to the personal feelings of the chieftains, the Right Honourable Lord dive, Governor in Council aforesaid, hereby authorises each palegar or zamindar to retain a certain number of peons carrying pikes for the purpose of maintaining the pomp and state heretofore attached to the persons of the said palegars. But the said number of Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 23 authorised pikemen shall be fixed and shall continue to be limited for the better execution of this intention, the said number of pikemen shall be determined by the Governor in Council of Fort St. But the said number of Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 23 authorised pikemen shall be fixed and shall continue to be limited for the better execution of this intention, the said number of pikemen shall be determined by the Governor in Council of Fort St. George upon the representation of the several palegars transmitted through the regular channel of the Companys Collector, after proclamation of the number so fixed, the names of the said pikemen shall be registered in the public cutcherry of the Collector, and the pikes shall in like manner be publicly stamped by the Collector with a mark bearing the sanction of the British Government." " In the confident expectation of reclaiming the people of the southern provinces from the habit of predatory warfare and in the hope of inducing them to resume the arts of peace and agriculture, the Right Honourable Edward Lord Clive, Governor in Council of Fort Saint George aforesaid, announces to the palegars and to all the inhabitants of their paleiyams that it is the intention of British Government to establish a permanent assessment of revenue on the lands of the paleiyams upon the principles of zamindari tenures, which assessment being once fixed shall be liable to no change in any time to come, that the palegars becoming by these means zamindars of their hereditary estates will be exempted from all military service and that the possessions of their ancestors will be secured to them under the operation of limited and defined laws to be printed and published as well for the purpose of restraining its own officers to the regulations and ordinances of the Government as of securing to the people their property, their lives and their religious usages of their respective castes." It appears to their Lordships that by that proclamation military service tenures in the districts to which the proclamation applied were abolished whether the palegars obtained a permanent assessment sanad or not. Following upon the proclamation of December 1, 1801, came Reg. XXV. of 1802, under which a permanent settle ment so far, if at all, as it has any bearing on this case was made with the bank, and an istimvari sanad was granted to the bank on September 29, 1905. The paleiyam estate had not been previously settled. Following upon the proclamation of December 1, 1801, came Reg. XXV. of 1802, under which a permanent settle ment so far, if at all, as it has any bearing on this case was made with the bank, and an istimvari sanad was granted to the bank on September 29, 1905. The paleiyam estate had not been previously settled. The palegars generally, including the palegar of Kannivadi, refused to accept istimvari sanads, and when the palegar of Kannivadi for the time being was willing to accept a sanad the Government refused in 1883 to grant him one. There can be little doubt that that refusal to grant him a sanad was out of consideration for the family, as it was generally believed that it was more difficult for a creditor to bring to sale unsettled paleiyams than paleiyam estates which were held under an istimvari settlement sanad. It appears to their Lordships that Reg. XXV. of 1802 does not affect the question whether in 1895 the paleiyam of Kannivadi was alienable or not. The Board decided in Collector of Trichinopoly v. Lekkamani (L. R. 1 I. A. 282, 306.) that the affirmative words of s. 2 of Reg. XXV. of 1802, "that in consequence of the assessment the proprietary right of the soil shall become vested in zamindars, etc.," did not either give to or take away from the former owners of lands not permanently settled, any rights which they then had. It (a settlement under that regulation) merely vested in all zamindars an hereditary right at a fixed revenue upon the conclusion of the permanent settlement with them." In that case the Board approved of the opinion expressed by the High Court of Madras " That the existence of a proprietary estate in paleiyams or other lands not permanently assessed, and the tenure by which it has been held, are, in our opinion, matters judicially determinable, on legal evidence, just as the right to any other property." (Ibid. 312.) In the same case the Board held that " The only difference between a paleiyam or zamindari which is permanently settled and one that is not, is that, in the former, the Government is precluded for ever from raising the revenue ; and, in the latter, the Government may or may not have that power " (p. 313). 312.) In the same case the Board held that " The only difference between a paleiyam or zamindari which is permanently settled and one that is not, is that, in the former, the Government is precluded for ever from raising the revenue ; and, in the latter, the Government may or may not have that power " (p. 313). In the present case the learned judges of the High Court held that the tenure of military service under which the paleiyam of Kannivadi had been held had been abolished and determined by the proclamation of December 1, 1801, and with that decision their Lordships have agreed. Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 100 ( 1920- 1921) Appayasami Naicker V. Midnapore Zamindari C ompany Limited 24 It remains to be considered whether the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held under a tenure of the palegar rendering police service to the State. The best and most reliable evidence that the paleiyam was held on police service tenure would be a sanad showing that it was so held. Only two sanads which were granted to any palegar of Kannivadi have been brought to the attention of this Board. They are sanads which were granted respectively on July 13, 1797} for the fasli year 1207, and July 13, 1800, for the fasli year 1200, to Appaya Naicker, the then palegar. There is nothing in either of those sanads from which their Lordships can infer that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was held on a tenure of rendering police duties to the State. The conditions in those sanads by which the palegar was bound to protect the inhabitants by preventing as far as might be in the power of the palegar robberies, depredations, etc., in their properties; to deliver up persons guilty of murder ; and not to give shelter to deserters, and to apprehend and deliver them to the collector are similar to the duties which all landholders and zamindars in British India have to perform. Even if it were possible to infer from those sanads that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was then held on a tenure of rendering police duties to the State, the police duties of zamindars in that part of the country were abolished in 1816 by the Government of Madras. Even if it were possible to infer from those sanads that the paleiyam of Kannivadi was then held on a tenure of rendering police duties to the State, the police duties of zamindars in that part of the country were abolished in 1816 by the Government of Madras. Their Lordships hold that in 1895 the paleiyam of Kannivadi was not inalienable, and that the then palegar had power to alienate it to suit his own purposes, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.