1. This case is similar to C.R.P. No. 253 of 1905 with the addition that there is here a question whether the utilization of a portion of the land for Nathankal, i. e., for growing seedlings for subsequent transplantation is or is not a proper cultivation of the land in due season. The Subordinate Judge says the landlord is not bound to provide plots for seedlings. That may be so, but that is not the question. The question is rather whether the tenant is entitled to grow seedlings for his own transplanting and if he does so whether he can be made to pay Varam for the Nathankal plot of land, if he is unable after transplanting the seedlings to grow on the same plot a crop to maturity.
2. I have not been shewn any case in which the point has been decided or any evidence in the suits under consideration bearing on this question; the allegation that remission is not granted for Nathankal is beside the point.
3. Prima facie the utilization as seed-bed of a reasonable portion of a nanjai holding, is a proper use of the land and prima facie the ryot will get all he can out of his holding; it lies therefore on the Zemindar to show that the Nathankal plots were wrongly used as such or that the ryot might and ought to have grown a crop to maturity on the same plots after removing the seedlings.
4. In the absence of such evidence I must hold that the Zemindar has not made out a claim for damages for non-cultivation of the Nathankal plots.
5. The decree must be modified by reducing the amount awarded to the plaintiff accordingly.
6. Costs will be paid and received in proportion to success and failure in both courts.