enquiry, in theory, jaii:s were resumerl on the death of the ho Ider of the jagir and their heirs cl id not automatically succeed to them. It is alsri clear that in their lifetime the .Tagirrfars were not p<'r·. mitted to alienate the property 11ncl th,tt it was not necessary that on the death of the J11girrbr the estate should be granted to all his lwirs eith<>r. It also appears that no suit relating to jagir c.·mlrl bo instituted in the Civil Court without the prior special permission of the Nizam. ThA Firman issued on Deeember 16, 1901, to which the Judgment refers, shows that the heirs of the deceased holders of J agirs could not insist upon their right to succeed to the estate because no Atiyat grant was heritable. Another Firman issued on September 28, 1928, showed that the powers of the grantor of the .Tq,gir could not be curtailed by the rulef! framed for the guidance of the Atiyat Courts and that the grantor had an absolute right either to regrant the state to the successor or not.. There fore, the position appears to be that "the jagir tenure consisted of no more than usufructuary rights in land to which the revenue law of the State did not apply; that the Jagirs were inalienable and terminable on the death of the grantee, each Jagirdar, though an heir of the dceasecl holder, was deemed a fresh grantee of the estate, the right to confer such o.n estate being uncontrolled, absolute and beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.
