1. The only question of law which arises relates to the interpretation of Sections 163 and 45 of the Madras Estates Land Act as bearing on plaintiff's claim to recover mesne profits a damages. In this connection we are disposed to think that the District Munsif is right and the Subordinate Judge 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 tresspass) 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 the power to award anything 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 land-holder' wishes to treat the trespassers as such and to recover the mesne profits or dangers 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.
3. We make no order as to costs in this Court.