1. The facts found are that a general village rent was paid up to fasli 1280, in which year a system of individual holdings with rates per acre was introduced. For four years there were quarrels and disturbances about the rates of rent which the Zamindar wished to levy, but for faslis 1285--1291 the rates paid have been Rs. 2-9-0 for dry and Rs. 8-8-0 for wet. The tenants object to the wet rate, and claim that they are only liable to pay the dry rate Rs. 2-9-0 per acre plus Rs. 4 Government tax upon dry land converted into wet by the water of the Kistna canal, thus distinguishing this wet land from the old mamul wet for which nanjah rates have to be paid to the Zamindar;
2. After careful consideration I find myself unable to distinguish this case from Narasimha v. Ramasami I.L.R. 14 Mad. 44.
3. The six years (fasli 1285--1291) during which these rates have been paid are not sufficient to establish an implied contract. No extra peishcush is levied from the Zamindar, nor is it found that he has contributed to the cost of the improvements. In either case he has not obtained the sanction of the Collector to the enhancement of rent and that the charge of such consolidated assessment is an enhanced rate there is no doubt. The argument that the Zamindar is only charging the mamul wet rates is of no force, since it is clear that no extra rate is demanded from him and Section 4, Madras Act VII of 1865, exempts him from extra payment for lands to which he is entitled to irrigation free of separate charge.
4. I agree with the District Judge that the three conditions referred to in paragraphs 15--17 of his judgment must be omitted. No argument was addressed to us with respect to the first and third, while the retention of the second would be inconsistent with the principle of this decision.
5. The memorandum of objections was not pressed except with regard to the trees. I' rima facie a tenant has no right to cut down trees without his landlord's permission and I can see no reason to omit this clause in the patta.
6. I would dismiss this second appeal and memorandum of objections with costs.
7. I am of the same opinion. It was held in Ramesam v.Bhanappa I.L.R. 7 Mad. 182 that the water tax of Rs. 4, which Government levies upon all lands irrigated from the Kistna channels, is not rent, and that if the landlord desires to add the tax to the rent and claim it as rent, he must obtain the sanction of the Collector. I can see no reason why the Zamindar should be allowed to charge the mamul wet rate of Rs. 8-8-0 upon dry lands converted into wet by the use of the Kistna water, seeing that his doing so would be to enhance the rent from Rs. 6-9-0 to Rs. 8-8-0 without the consent of the Collector.