Judgment The defendants are the appellants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for a declaration of the plaintiff’s melwaram right in a portion of the land bearing S. No. 83, Nanja, 48 cents in extent in Vengudi village and for recovery of Rs. 75 being the melwaram share of the produce due for faslis 1357, 1358 and 1359. The defendants are the owners of kudiwaram interest in the land bearing No. 83, Nanja, 95 cents in extent in Vengudi village. The case of the plaintiff is that the melwaram right in the said land was originally owned by two persons named Balasubramania Asari and Ponnusami Asari, that Balasubramania Asari’s half share was sold in Court-auction in S.C. No. 54 of 1937, Sub-Court, Chingleput, and purchased by the plaintiff, that he has taken delivery of possession of the said half share and that therefore he is entitled to the melwaram right from the defendants. The defendants contended that the melwaram right in the land, which is a blacksmith service inam was not liable to be sold either inter-parties or in execution of a decree of a Court and such a sale is void. The trial Court upheld the contention and dismissed the action. In appeal the learned District Judge took a different view. The short point for determination is whether the sale in Court-auction of an interest in a blacksmith service inam is valid to entitle the purchaser to the limited rights in the property. The trial Court followed the rulings in Anjaneyalu v. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd.1 and also in Gokavarapu Swami v. Satheyya2, and held that a service tenure is not subject to attachment in execution of a decree, as the sale of such interest in the lands is opposed to public policy. The learned District Judge, however, relied on the decision in Venkanna v. Chinna Appalaswami3, and took the view that such a sale would be good till the lifetime of the service-holder and that until the Government interferes and resumes the inams the purchaser of the melwaram right could enforce his rights to recover the melwaram. There is apparently a confusion and for the later position he relied on the decision in Vaidyanatha Ayyar v. Yogambal Animal4, which related to a personal inam. There is apparently a confusion and for the later position he relied on the decision in Vaidyanatha Ayyar v. Yogambal Animal4, which related to a personal inam. The Full Bench ruling in Anjaneyalu v. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd.1, places beyond doubt that such a sale is void ab initio and this is the language of section 5 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act III of 1895, which provides: “The emoluments of village offices, whether such offices be or be not hereditary, and in the scheduled districts as defined in the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, all such emoluments and other emoluments granted or continued in remuneration for the performance of duties connected with the collection of the revenue or the maintenance of orders shall not be liable to be transferred or encumbered in any manner whatsoever and it shall not be lawful for any Court to attach or sell such emoluments or any portion thereof”. That such an alienation is against public policy is also held by the learned Judges in Anjaneyalu v. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd.1, whether it would be competent for the holder of a service inam to lease the property and whether such a lease would be valid till his lifetime is a matter which does not arise in this appeal and there is some variance in the views of this Court, which however does not require to be examined for the purpose of this appeal, which raises only the question as to the validity of a sale of a service inam in execution of a decree of Court. The lower Court rightly followed the decision in Anjaneyalu v. Sri Venugopala Rice Mill, Ltd1., and dismissed the suit. The result is the appeal is allowed and the suit stands dismissed with costs. P.R.N. ----- Appeal allowed. Suit dismissed.