meaning of the Act, including lands and buildings which had been incorporated with the zamindari, would be governed by the provisions of the Act; the apportionment of lauds would be governed by ss. 12 and 47 of the Act, whereas the buildings in· corporated with the zamindari prior to the Act would vest in the plaintiff after the notified date and they would not be partible. In the result, the learned trial Judge recorded his findings on the several issues and passed a final decree. It is unnecessary to refer to all the details of the decree. It would be enough merely to state the broad items allotted to the parties which are in dispute before us. In regard to the claim made by the plaintiff that 140 jewels con· stituted regalia, the learned Judge recognised his claim in respect of 36 jewels only. Those jewels were items 1 to 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 46, 56, 57, 79, 80, 108, 116, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 128 of Appen· dix A. Through oversight, the learned Judge had also included item No. 25 in this list, but it is con· ceded that that is an error. As to the plaintiff's claim that subsequently acquired properties had been incorporated in the estate, the learned Judge upheld his claim in respect of the Prince of Wales Market at Vizianagram, permanent lease·hold rights in respect of nine villages, and the Admirality House at Madras, Waltair House and Elk House at Ooty. Defendant No. 4's claim was partly recognised by the learned Judge who passed a decree in h~r favour in respect of 15 items ol jewels claimed by her. These were items 20, 45, 49, 54, 186, 203, :l30, 348, 349, two of the gold anklets in items 364, and 535 and items 136, 138, 141, and 297. The reference to the items is according to the list made by Mr. Sathianathan (Ext. P-157). It is conceded before us that this list included three items in Appendix B filed by defendant No. 4, and since defendant No. 4 had conceded the right of defendant No. 2 in respect of all the ornaments in appendix B, the inclusion of these three items was erroneous. In
