1. In so far as the claim for Faslis 1317 and 1318 is concerned, the order of the District Judge remanding; the suit for disposal on its merits is correct. The Revenue Divisional Officer appears to have overlooked the fact that the defendant in his written statement not only disputed the correctness of the amount of rent claimed by the plaintiffs, but pleaded that in consequence of the plaintiffs failure to tender him a proper patta the suit was not maintainable. Whether this latter plea was valid or not (a point with which we shall deal later) the defendant was entitled to have it adjudicated on. Section 195 of the Madras Estates Land Act is no obstacle, for it merely enacts that the Collector shall, except for special reasons refuse to take cognisance of the plea that the amount claimed is in excess of the amount due and not of any Other plea which the ryots may raise against the maintainability of the suit. The Revenue Divisional Officer has in effect by decreeing the plaintiff's claim as sued for fuslis 1318 and 1319 struck out the defendant's whole defence to the suit. This is illegal.
2. As regards Fusli 1317, the District Judge has held: relying on Sri Rajah Bomma Devara Venkata Narasimha Naidu v. Sajja Satayya (1911) M.W.N. 139 that as there was no tender of patta, the suit for rent will not lie. In that case the suit was instituted before the Madras Estates Land Act came into force so that it is no authority on the point now under consideration. The cases of Sri Rajah Satrucharla Veerabhadra Raju Garu v. Gunta Rushmi Naidu (1912) M.W.N. 441 and Muthiah Chettiar v. Ramaswami Chettiar (1918) M.W.N 618 are clear authorities for holding that under the present Act tender of patta is not a necessary condition precedent to a suit for rent.
3. The suit in so far as it relates to fusli 1317 must therefore be remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer. for disposal according to law.
4. Costs in this and the District: Court will be costs in the cause.