1. The result of the evidence is, as found by the Subordinate Judge, that the annual rent value of the estate was not fixed for the purpose of the Act by the Revenue Officer in charge of the Division as provided in Section 22 of the Madras Proprietary Village Service Act, but by his Subordinate, the Deputy Tahsildar, nor is there any evidence to show that the Deputy Tahsildar's calculation was adopted by the Revenue Officer in charge of the Division as his own.
2. The Deputy Tahsildar's demand was made in Exhibit C-1, dated 18th April 1913, and the money was paid by the Rajah under protest on 4th and 6th August 1915, and he now sues to recover it back on the ground among others, that the demand was illegal owing to the failure of the Officers of Government to comply with the provisions of the section. We agree with his contention and dismiss the appeal on this ground with costs.