Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The petition Civil Revision Petition No. 74 of 1912 and the connected petitions have arisen out of four suits brought for kattubadi on inam, lands held by karnams. The District Munsif has given a perfunctory finding that (a) kattubadi is due, (6) that the claim for kattubadi is barred as it was never paid before. Ramachandra v. Jaganmohana 15 M.K 161. The mere fact that it was never paid before cannot bar the suit for kattubadi due on a land if the suit is brought within three years of the dale when that particular year's kattubadi fell due. It was only if the tenant had denied the landlord's title to get kattubadi more than 12 years before suit and had refused to pay it, basing the refusal on such denial of title in the landlord to recover, that the landlord's claim would be barred. See Ramachandra v. Jaganmohana 15 M.K 161. There is no evidence whatever in these cases that the defendants refused to pay kattubadi in any year on the basis of a denial of the landlord's right or that they ever denied the landlord's right at all before this suit was brought.
2. As regards the right to the kattubadi, the only evidence on the question of such right is that of one of the defendants themselves who wrote the plaintiff's accounts as the village karnam. He says: 'Defendant in Second Civil Suit No. 394 is due Rs. 5-14-3; defendant in No. 395 vice the same defendant in No. 396 owes Rs. 11-12-6. Defendant in No. 397, Rs. 7-4-0. In No. 1317. defendant in No. 397 paid Rs. 6 and there is balance of Rs. 1-4-0.' And he goes on to say that these amounts so 'due' and owing were not demanded or collected if the proprietor found that the karnams did their duties properly (execute). In the case of the karnam who was the defendant in No. 397, he was paying all along and that in the cases of others if they had not worked properly, the proprietor would have demanded the money.' It is on a perverted misreading of this evidence that the Munsif committed an error of law in holding on this evidence that kattubadi is not due and owing simply because the proprietor used to mercifully not demand or collect it if the karnams were obedient. Especially, in the Suit No. 397 when the defendant has been paying jodi all along, it is impossible to understand how the Munsif arrived at his illegal finding.
3. In the result, the Munsif's decisions are reversed and the plaintiff will obtain a decree in each suit for the relief claimed therein with costs in both Courts. Interest at 6 per cent. from the date of plaint will be allowed.