1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff had been already punished for his misconduct by Government having resumed possession of the inam land and substituted a money payment. That was in no sense a punishment of the plaintiff. It was a precautionary measure to render malversation by him more difficult. Government was in fact not competent to remove him from office or punish him for misconduct. Upon the merits we entirely agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff was guilty of gross misconduct; and we hold that the committee were justified in removing him from office
2. We must, therefore, allow Appeal No. 63 of 1901 and dismiss Appeal No. 150 of 1901. In modification of the District Judge's decree we dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs throughout-two sets-one for the 2nd and 6th defendants, and one for the 7th and 8th defendants, the latter in proportion to the claims made against them.
3. The institution fee in Appeal No. 150 of 1901 and in the lower Court must be paid by the plaintiff.