Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. Whether the second crop alone was raised with the help of the tenant's improvement (the well excavated by him at his own expense) or both the first and the second crops were due to the help of the irrigation from that well, I think that the increase of production' in the holding by the quantity of grain raised in the second crop is a consequence of the improvement.' If so, the tenant is, under Section 13, Clause (3), not liable to pay 'a higher rate of rent,' that is a rate higher than he would have had to pay if the increase of production had not taken place. The rate of rent is, in my opinion, higher for the Fasli in question whether the increase which makes it higher is brought about by the condition that the rent for the Fasli shall be larger than that first provided for in the muchilika in case two crops are raised instead of one, or whether such increase is brought about by the condition that a separate or independent amount shall be paid as additional rent for the second crop besides the rent charged for the first crop.
2. The lower Courts have, therefore, rightly deleted the condition in the patta requiring the tenant to pay an additional rent if a second crop is raised and I would dismiss the second appeal with costs.
3. The parties are at issue as to the terms in which the clause in the muchilika dealing with the rent payable by the tenants to the appellant should be framed. The appellant contends that the clause should be so framed as to provide that the rent should be calculated on the basis of the number of crops raised, so that if the second crop is raised on the lands, additional rent should be payable in respect of the second crop. The tenants contend that the rent so far payable has been in respect of the land as such and has no reference to the number of crops, that a term to the effect claimed by the landlord would cause an enhancement of the rent, and should, therefore, be disallowed.
4. Each party relies in the first instance on Section 27 of the Madras Estates Land Act. The appellant claims that the question having arisen as to the amount of rent payable or the conditions on which he holds the land in any particular year, viz., for Fasli. 1319, it ought to be presumed to be held on the same rate and on the same conditions as in Fasli 1318; and that when the rate and conditions for Fasli 1318 are examined in the light of the evidence in the case it is found that there is a term in the pattas and muchilikas for Fasli 1310-1318 that a second crop if raised shall be paid for separately. To this the tenants' reply is that, as a matter of fact, a second crop was not raised till three years before suit, but on no previous occasion was a separate rent for the second crop claimed or paid.
5. Section 27 does not, under these circumstances, seem to me to help either party, and it has been contended that the question must primarily be decided in accordance with the terms of Section 13 (3) of the Act.
6. Both the lower Courts have proceeded on the basis that Section 13 (3) requires a decision in favour of the tenants. The fact which is alleged by the tenants to bring about this result is that the well which makes it possible for the second crop being raised (equally, it may be, with the first crop) was dug by the tenants or their ancestors, that this was an improvement at the sole expense of the ryots and that in consequence of such improvement there has been an increase of production for which a higher rent ought not to become payable. I confess to a certain amount of doubt whether this argument is capable of being based on the wording of Section 13 (3) without some strain on the section. But after giving the matter my best consideration I am of opinion that the lower Courts were justified in coming to the conclusion at which they arrived, and in holding that the second crop is an increase of production consequent upon the improvement made by the tenants at their own expense.
7. I, therefore, agree that this appeal should be dismissed.