1. The only question of law which arises related to the interpretation of Sections 163 and 45 of the Madras Estates Land Act as bearing on plaintiff's claim to recover mesne profits as damages. In this connection we are disposed to think that the District Munsif is right and the Subordinate Judge is wrong. Section 163 is a section which specifically gives jurisdiction to the Civil Court (1) to evict a trespasser, and (2) to award (as damages for the trespass) ' any sum payable under Section 45.' Such a section must in our opinion be strictly interpreted and we do not think the Civil Court can be held to have power to award any thing else than 'the sum payable under Section 45.' But this sum, where, as in the present case, no rent is fixed for the land, is a sum to be determined by the Collector and by no one else, and we cannot follow the Subordinate Judge's reasoning that the Civil Court becomes vested' with the Collector's power to fix the rent and assess the. damages.' It would seem to follow that if the landholder wishes to treat the trespasser as such and to recover mesne profits or damages from him, he must first apply to the Collector under Section 45 to get the amount of the latter determined and then bring his suit in the Civil Court under Section 163. This is no doubt a cumbersome procedure, but not impracticable and in no other way do we see how to give effect to the provisions of both sections of the Act.
2. On this view we must set aside the Lower Appellate Court's order of remand and restore the decree of the District Munsif. We make no order as to costs in this Court.