1. The law is now well settled in the absence of any contractor usage to the contrary, Kattubadi is not chargeable on the and. See Gajapati Bajah v. Surya.
2. We disagree with the view taken by the Sub-Judge, and we think the District Munsif was right in holding that in the present case, the Kattubadi is not chargeable on the land.
3. It has been pointed out that the plaintiff in the prayer of his plaint asks that the arrears of Kattubadi claimed may be satisfied on the liability of the defendants and of the lands and that the 3rd defendant in his written statement does not in terms deny that the Kattubadi is chargeable on the land. As a matter of technical pleading there is no ground alleged that the Kattubadi is chargeable on the land. But we should certainly not decide this case on any technicality of pleading.
4. The 4th issue involved the question as to whether the Kattubadi was chargeable on the land, and the District Munsif held that it was not so chargeable.
5. Agreeing with this view we must allow the appeal and dismiss the sun as against the appellant with costs throughout.