1. The point argued in the appeal is that -which has been dealt with as the third point by the lower Appellate Court, whether in calculating the profits allowed to the petitioners for the period of--, their exclusion from the land, the rent payable to the respondents-landholders should be deducted. We agree with the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court for its conclusion against the petitioners and need only refer to the fact dealt with in the judgment under appeal that after the decision of the District Munsif in these proceedings the respondents sued as landholders under the Madras Estates Land Act for rent and their , suit was dismissed. It is urged that this is conclusive against their claim to deduct rent from the profits they have to pa)' to the petitioners. We do not agree. The suit in the Revenue Court was founded On an allegation clearly unsustainable, that the relation of landlord and tenant was subsisting between the parties during the period in question. The failure of the suit on the ground that this relation was not so subsisting can have no effect on the decision as to the amount of the damages payable, 'he proper basis for that decision being the amount of the profits, which would have been realized ii the petitioner's enjoyment of the land in virtue of their title as occupancy raiyats liable to pay rent, had continued It is not show n how the respondents' conduct in bringing this suit in the Revenue Court creates an estoppel or otherwise debars them from their present claim. In these circumstances, the appeal against the appellate order fails and is dismissed with costs.
2. This judgment applies also to A.A.A.O. No. 173 of 1920, which is similarly dismissed with costs.