1. The rule in question is not easy to construe but we have come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Munsif was right.
2. It seems to us clear that the words 'full water-rate' in Rule 2 means full water-rate in respect of wet cultivation and not full water-rate in respect of the crop actually raised, wet or dry as the case may be. We are not prepared to say that the same words in Rule 3 should be construed as having a different meaning, It seems to us that 'full' means something different from 'whole.' If it does not, the word is redundant. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that 'full' means without the deduction in the case of 'lift' which gives the cultivator the benefit of the lower scale, If this is the meaning, the cultivator, after the ten years, would have to go on cultivating without being entitled to any deduction for baling which is altogether unreasonable and contrary to the rules with reference to deduction for baling,
3. The charge is leviable on the whole block whether it is irrigated or not. If the respondent is right, there would be no provision in a case where a wet crop was raised on part of the land, a dry crop on another part, and a part left uncultivated as to the rate payable in respect of the land which had been left uncultivated.
4. The appeal must be allowed and the decree of the District Munsif restored,
5. Each party will bear his own costs throughout.