Bird wood, J.
1. The decision in Sitaram Vinayak v. Ramchandra Babaji Printed Judgments for 1885, p. 24 does not govern the present case. All that was really decided in that case was that the assignment of the income of the village of Govardhan was not in contravention of Section 5 of Bombay Act III of 1874. Nor are the cases of Vasudev Vithal Samant v. Ramchandra Gopal Samant I.L.R., 6 Bom., 129 and Shivaji Nilkanth v. Tirko Bhimaji Nadgir Printed Judgments for 1885, p.206 exactly in point. In the present case, the plaintiff and the defendants were co-sharers in a kulkarni vatan and entered into an agreement, in 1869, for the performance of the duties of the vatan by the several sharers in turn. If any of the sharers prevented the nomination of a sharer to officiate in his turn, he was to pay Rs. 100 as damages to the person thus excluded from office or service. Damages are claimed in the present case in respect of the plaintiff’s exclusion from office in the year 1883, when it became his turn to officiate. The Collector issued a notice to the sharers, under Section 40 of Bombay Act III of 1874, calling upon them to appear before him to elect an officiator for that year. It is alleged that, instead of electing the plaintiff, in accordance with the agreement of 1869, the defendants nominated another person, not a representative vatandar, who was accordingly confirmed in the appointment by the Collector, and deemed to be a deputy under Clause 3 of Section 40. We think that the agreement of 1869 cannot be enforced by a civil suit, not only because it is opposed to the policy of Section 40 of the Act, which clearly contemplates a free election of an officiator by the whole body of registered representative vatandars to whom the Collector issues his notice-an election unfettered by any promises made beforehand by any of the sharers-but also because a suit in respect of any injury caused by exclusion from office or service is expressly barred by the second paragraph of Clause (a) of Section 4 of Act X of 1876.
2. With reference to the doubt suggested in the judgment in Vasudev Vithal Samant v. Ramchandra Gopal Samant I.L.R., 6 Bom., 129 we are of opinion, having regard to the wording of the several clauses of Section 4, that the bar therein provided is not limited to suits against Government. The section is fully in force in the Sholapur District, where the present suit has arisen, being unaffected, as regards that district, by Act XVI of 1877. We find, therefore,
3. that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to hear the present case.
4. We reverse the decisions of both Courts, and reject the claim, with costs throughout.