1. The District Munsif does not appear to have considered the legal effect of his finding on the third issue, that defendants had no notice of plaintiffs' intention to demand a higher rent for the suit faslis. It is in evidence that the suit lands had been cultivated with wet crops for at least 15 years (according to defendants, 24 or 25 years), and that during the whole of that time cist was collected only at the rate of 15 annas 10 pies per acre. In the absence of intimation to the contrary the tenants were justified in inferring that they would be allowed to cultivate on the same terms for the suit fastis, which expired on 30th June 1909. Plaintiffs gave them no notice of their intention to make higher claim, but in 1910 filed suit for rent at a higher rate. If the tenants had received notice, they might have elected to raise dry crops only and thus escape the higher demand. It appears to me that in these circumstances plaintiffs are estopped from demanding the higher rent they claim for the suit faslis (Vide Narasimhachari v. Gopala Aiyangar I.L.R. (1905) M. 391. and Sri Sankayachari Swamiar v. Varada Pillai I.L.R. (1903) M. 332
2. The Munsif's decree also appears to be erroneous as regards the allowance of Karnam's selagam. The defendants disputed their liability to pay this. The only evidence adduced in support of the demand consists of entries in Exhibit A, series, Muchilikas dated 1875. No evidence is adduced to show that this selagam was ever collected, and there is positive evidence that it was not paid for a period of 15 or 25 years.
3. The Munsif's decree must be set aside and plaintiffs given a decree for rent for Faslis 1317 and 1318 at the rate of 15 annas 10 pies per acre only with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum Each side will get proportionate costs both here and in the Small Cause Court.
4. This Judgment will govern Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1020 to 1025 also.