JUDGMENT
1. This Second Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench on account of a conflict between the cases reported in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. David Nadar (1904) 14 M.LJ. 433 and Brahmayya v. Pappctsetty. (1928) I.L.R. 51 M. 695 : 55 M.L.J. 33 We do not think it necessary to say more than that, in our opinion the first case which was not brought to the notice of the Bench in the second, was rightly decided. The second case proceeds on the misconception that the definition in Section 3, Clause (6) of the Madras General Clauses Act of 1891 applied to Regulation VII of 1828 or to Act II of 1864.
2. Following the decision in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. David Nadar (1904) 14 M.LJ. 433 we dismiss the Second Appeal with costs (two sets).