1. Article 108 of the Limitation Act becomes applicable only if a suit is brought by the landlord for recovery of the value of trees cat down by his lessee.' In this case the plaintiff does not sue for recovery of any such value, but only claims that in the taking of the accounts as between himself and his kuzhi kanom tenants the value of the trees wrongfully cut down by the latter should be debited against the tenants who want to get credit for the value of the improvements made by them.
2. The pleadings in the suit make it reasonably clear that the defendants (the tenants) did not deny the right of the landlord to have the value of trees wrongfully cut by them deducted from the value of the improvements due to them (the tenants) and there was no issue raised on the plea of limitation. We are of opinion that under the Malabar Common Law governing the mutual rights between landlords and their kuzhi kanom tenants, a right to deduct the value of trees wrongfully cut by the tenants during the 12 years' term of the kuzhi kanom lease from the value of the improvements due to the tenants, vests in the landlord. We, therefore, allow the second appeal to the extent of the plaintiff's claim to set off Rs. 60 (value of a Jack tree wrongfully cut down by the defendants from the amount due for improvements to the tenants. There is nothing in the other contentions in this second appeal, which is dismissed in other respects.
3. The parties will receive and pay proportionate costs in this second appeal.