1. Following Sattappa Pillai v. Raman Chetti 17 M.k 1 and Suppa Pillai v. Nagayasami Thumbichi Naicker 31 M.k 19 we hold that a custom to pay enhanced rent if wet crops are cultivated on dry lands (provided that the wet crops are not raised with the help of the improvements effected at the tenants' sole expense) is not illegal. In the present case, the help of the water of the Periyar Channel cannot be said to be the help due to the tenants' improvements, even though the tenant might pay water rate to the Circar. There was no permanent work done by the tenant which improved the holding.
2. We shall, therefore, request the District Court to submit a finding on the evidence on record on the question whether by custom, the plaintiff is entitled to charge the wet rate claimed if wet crops are raised on dry lands by the tenant with the help of water not obtained by any improvements effected by the tenant himself.'
3. The findings should be submitted in four weeks from receipt of records and ten days will be allowed for filing objections.
4. After the return of the finding in the negative of the lower Appellate Court upon the issue referred by the High Court for trial, the Court delivered the following.
5. We accept the finding and dismiss the second appeal with costs.