Moore and Sankaran Nair, JJ.
1. It is contended before us on behalf of the defendant that no exchange of pattas and muchilikas is necessary as the plaintiff holds the land as an Inamdar and the amount payable by him is not rent in the ordinary acceptation of the word, payable by a tenant to a landlord but only road-cess and russum.
2. An affidavit is filed before us on behalf of the plaintiff to show that he is a cultivating tenant paying rent and that the case, therefore, does not fall within the rule in Lakshminaraynna Pantulu v. Venkatrayanam I.L.R(1897) M. 116.
3. It is not clear from the judgments what is the nature of the tenure under which the land is held. We, therefore, direct the lower appellate Court to return a finding on the question what is the nature of the tenure on which the land now in suit is held by the plaintiff. Fresh evidence may be taken. The, finding should be returned within two months and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.
4. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge submitted the following
1. In Second Appeal No. 560 of 1904: - We are unable to agree with Mr. Seshagiri Aiyar's interpretation of the decision in Nallayappa Pillian v. Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi I.L.R(1903) M. 465, and we consider that the meaning to be attached to the language used by the Court in that case is that stated in MUthusami Pillai v. Arunachellam Chettiar : (1905)15MLJ361 . Following that case we are of opinion that the defendant, the superior landholder, was not required to exchange, patta and muchilika with the plaintiff, an inamdar holding under him. The circumstance that the plaintiff happens to possess 'the kudivaram right in the property in respect of which he was also Inamdar bound to pay 'russum' to the landholder does not alter the case or impose upon the land-holder, an obligation which would not otherwise subsist between him and the Inamdar.
2. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the case for disposal by the Court of First Instance. Costs will abide and follow the result.
3. Second Appeal No. 561 of 1904 follows.