1. The only point argued in these Second Appeals is whether the plaintiff was entitled to levy Sarasari in respect of the lands, in the possession of the defendants. It has been held that in the case of kulamkowai lands, that is lands situated within the water-spread of the tank, if the tenant raises a nanji crop by putting up ridges all round, thereby preventing the flow of water into the tank or by retaining water, which would flow into the tank, when the level of the tank goes down, he is bound to pay Sarasari. But in this case, the finding is the lands in question are not kulamkowai lands. These lands are outside the water-spread of the tank. The question is whether what applies to kulamkowai lands should also be held applicable to lands outside the water-spread of the tank. Mr. Sundararaja Aiyangar, who appears for the respondent, contends that water, which would have flowed into the tank, has been obstructed by the defendant putting up ridges round the lands. Ha relied upon the decision of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 1034 of 1919, as supporting his contention. In that case, the District Judge found that the tenants not only put up ridges and obstructed flow of surplus water, but also diverted water of certain odais into their lands, for the purpose of raising wet crops. In this case, there is no finding that any such odai or water flowing in a defined channel has been diverted into the defendant's lands. 'What the defendants have done is to catch rain water as it fell on their lands. The landlord has no right to the rain water, till it flows in a denned channel. He is not entitled to the rain water, which falls an a tenant's lands, till that water leaves the tenant's land and flows into a tank, or into an odai or channel, which leads water into his tank. The decision in Arunachallam Chetliar v. Mangalam (1917) 40 Mad. 640 has, therefore, no application to the present case and the facts in this case are different from the facts in S.A. No. 1034 of 1919. The question therefore is whether in the case of lands, which are cultivated purely by rain water which falls on them, they should be charged Sarasari. There is no warrant for saying that such lands should be charged Sarasari, if wet crop is raisad. No doubt, by putting up ridges all round the lands, the defendants have to some extent obstructed the flow of water into the plaintiff's tank; but that by itself would not give the plaintiff right to charge Sarasri rate, in the case of lands outside the water-spread.
2. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the decree of the lower Courts are reversed and the suits dismissed. The appellants will have their coats throughout.
3. The defendants' liability to pay punja rate is not denied; the plaintiff therefore is entitled to get in a proper proceeding.