JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This is an appeal by the first Defendant who is an alienee in respect of 48 cents of washerman-service inam lands from the brother and the wife of the service inamdar, namely, the Plaintiff. It is said that during the Plaintiff's absence in Rangoon the Defendant-Appellant took a sale deed from the brother and the minor son of the Plaintiff represented by the mother as guardian, and has been in possession. On his return from Rangoon the Plaintiff filed a suit in ejectment. 2. The learned Munsif dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that as the lands had been a resumed and re-granted to the alienee, the Plaintiff had lost his title. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge held that the resumption proceedings were not regular and were not binding on the Plaintiff. He also held that the Government order had not been made final as the Collector had intimated to the Court that he would await the decision of the Civil suit. The learned District Judge, therefore, reversed the finding of the Munsif and granted a decree to the Plaintiff. 3. In the second appeal, it is urged on behalf of the Appellant, firstly that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it is essentially a suit for recovery of emoluments attached to a village office. Paragraph 2 of the plaint has been read out to us, which sets out the title of the Plaintiff. There the Plaintiff alleges that he is the village washerman and that the lands were being enjoyed by him as emoluments attached to the office. He further alleges that during his absence at Rangoon the first Defendant took a collusive and fraudulent sale deed from Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and that she has been in illegal possession of the lands a trespasser. The Plaintiff therefore, prayed for her ejectment from the suit lands. On going through the plaint it is clear to us that the suit was conceived .in trespass and that the Plaintiff did not claim recovery of possession as office holder of the village. He has treated the Defendant Appellant as a trespasser who encroached upon his lands, to which he (the Plaintiff) had got title. On going through the plaint it is clear to us that the suit was conceived .in trespass and that the Plaintiff did not claim recovery of possession as office holder of the village. He has treated the Defendant Appellant as a trespasser who encroached upon his lands, to which he (the Plaintiff) had got title. It is contended however that the civil court would have had jurisdiction only if the Plaintiff had set out his possession and based his title on his prior possession. But in view of the fact that the Plaintiff has set (jut his title as village inamdar, entitled to service inam, We are unable to accede to this contention and we are of opinion that suits for trespass simpliciter can lie only in the civil court. The next point raised is whether in view of the resumption proceedings the Appellant is not entitled to remain in possession. It is conceded by learned Counsel that the procedure prescribed for resumption has not been adopted in this case. Firstly it is found that the village service had not ceased during the absence of the Plaintiff as both his wife and brother were rendering service to the village. This fact would deprive the Collector of jurisdiction to resume the lands. Secondly it is found that the Inamdar was not served with any notice prior to the lands being resumed. In view of these clear findings, we are unable to accept the contention raised by learned Counsel. The view taken by the lower appellate court is, therefore correct and must be affirmed and we would hold that the subsequent patta granted to the Appellant cannot be operative as against the Plaintiff's title. In agreement with the learned District Judge therefore, we would hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the lands as the first Defendant is in no better position than that of a trespasser. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Mohapatra, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed