Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. to revise the decree of the District Judge of Vizagapatam in A.S. No. 174 of 1911. The suit out of which that appeal arose was brought by some inamdars against their tenant to recover rent due for the first two instalments of the year soumya. The plaintiffs’ suit was decreed on certain findings of fact and of law. There are nine grounds in the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition presented to this Court. The phrase ” The Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity ” occurs in several of these grounds but I am satisfied that it only means that the Court committed some error of law or other in arriving at certain findings of fact or of law. Section 115 therefore has no application and the contentions raised in these grounds must be rejected. The only contention which really relates to the question of jurisdiction is that raised in the 6th ground of the memorandum, namely, ” that a suit for rent of this land ought to have been preferred before the Revenue Court,” though the reason why the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts is ousted is not expressly mentioned even in this ground.
2. It is argued that the inam falls under the definition of an “estate” within Section 3 of the Estates Land Act, that therefore the plaintiffs are ” land-holders ” and that the suit for rent against a tenant holding under a land-holder ought to be brought in the Revenue Courts and not in the Civil Courts. It appears in this case that the inam had been granted by a former Maharajah before the issue of the Permanent Settlement sannad to the Maharajah of Vizianagaram, and following Virabhadrayya v. Sonti Venkanna (1913) 24 M.L.J. 659. I must hold that the inam is not an ” estate ” or part of an estate nor are the inamdars “landholders within the definitions of those terms contained in the Estates Land Act. The Jurisdiction of the Civil Courts has, therefore, not been lost over a suit for rent by such an Inamdar.
3. I dismiss the petition with costs.