1. We are all agreed that the plaintiff in this case was not a person owning 'an estate or a part thereof' within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act, as, by the terms of the patta and muchilika, Exhibits C and IV (6), dated 26-1-13, he continued to hold under the Zemindar. We are, also, of opinion that he was not 'a person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner or his predecessor-in-title' within the meaning of the rest of the section. The plaintiff's ancestors were estate ryots before the lands became karnam service inam lands and their lands again became ryoti land within the meaning of the Act, under the definition in Section 3(16), when the karnam service came to an end in January, 1913. The effect of Exhibits C and IV (6) was to grant the plaintiff, who thereby regained the status of a ryot, a remission of the greater portion of the rent payable by him to the Zemindar, and not to transfer to him any right to collect rents from third persons. We accordingly answer the first question referred to us in the negative. In this view the second question does not arise.