1. In S.A. Nos. 92 and 93 of 5 902. In those two cases, we must hold that the plaintiff was entitled to refuse to accept the relinquishments proposed to be made by the tenants inasmuch as these relinquishments were of portions of the entire dry lands comprised in the holdings which portions, are not earmarked and not capable of identification. It appears that what is virtually a consolidated assessment is imposed on the whole of the dry land in each holding although in ariving at the total sum the rent on a portion of the area is calculated at a higher rate than on the rest of the dry land. Under such a system, it is clear that a tenant cannot relinquish a portion of his dry holding as if that portion was a separate field bearing a separate assessment. We accordingly allow these two second appeals with costs in this Court and in the Lower Appellate court, set aside the decrees of the District Judge and restore the pigments of the Sub-Collector.
2. In S.A. No. 94 of 1902. Here the holding of the tenant includes dry lands and garden lands and the tenant has relinquished the whole of the dry lands retaining the garden lands which bear a separate assessment. We agree with the District Judge that this relinquishment should be accepted and we accordingly dismiss this second appeal.