1. The first question argued in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is a tenant within the meaning of Act VIII of 1865. It is contended that as the plaintiff is an Inamdar and not a cultivator of the land he cannot be regarded as a tenant of the Zamindar. The argument is founded upon a misconception of the decision of the Privy Council in Ramasami v. Bhaskarasami I. L. R 2 M 67. The sole question before the Privy Council was whether a certain document required registration. On behalf of the appellant (defendant in the case) it was argued that the document was a patta and that therefore it was exempted from registration. All that the Privy Council decided with reference to the constructions of Sections 3, 8 and 9 of Act VIII of 1865 was that the provisions were made upon the assumption that there is an existing relation which would warrant the application for a written patta. The case of Rama v. Venkatachalam, I. L. R 8 M 576, is distinguishable as in that case what the rentor claimed to collect was the kattubadi and road-cess payable to Government, a deduction being allowed as a remuneration for his trouble. In the present case the jodi which the Zamindar seeks to collect was included by the sannad in the assets of the Zamindari and is payable direct to the Zamindar. The definition of a tenant in Act VIII of 1865 is a person who is bound to pay rent to a landholder. It is not denied that the Zamindar is a landholder and it is conceded that plaintiff is bound to pay to the Zamindar jodi or quit rent upon his Inam. We think therefore that the lower courts were right in holding that the plaintiff was a tenant and that the Zamindar was entitled to proceed against him under Act VIII of 1865. The relation of landlord and tenant undoubtedly has long existed between the Zamindar and the plaintiff and his predecessors in title. With reference to the contention that the Zamindar can only claim the amount of jodi entered in the patta granted by the Inam Commissioner, it is conceded that since the decision of this Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1888 the finding of the lower appellate court cannot be questioned.
2. It is contended by the respondent that the opinion of the District Judge that the Inam title-deed is such a document as is contemplated by Section 13 of Act VIII of 1865 cannot be upheld and we have no doubt that the judge was in error. The plaintiff does not claim to be an intermediate landlord. He admits that he is an Inamdar or holder of land with a right of occupancy and merely contends that he sublets the land to others. This will not confer on him any higher status than that of a tenant.
3. It does not appear that the other points raised in the memo, of appeal presented to the lower appellate court were argued or pressed upon the attention of the judge and no issue was recorded on these points in the Court of First Instance. We cannot therefore allow them any weight to have here. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.