1. In this case the point taken before me is that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant, mesne profits in the way the lower Courts have done as the plaintiffs are entitled only to such profits-as can be claimed under Clause 2 of Section 163 of the Madras Estates Land Act under which insane profits have to be ascertained by the Collector under Section 45, and reliance is placed upon the ruling in Kotikalapudi Rattayya v. Venkataramayya Appa Rao : (1920)39MLJ571 , if the land in question were ryoti land the argument may be sound, but the finding of both the lower Courts is that this land is not ryoti laiid because, it is not ordinarily cultivable. The learned appellate judge says that it is a sort of waste land usually submerged in water in the rainy season and not under cultivation at all On that finding Section 163 will not apply and there will be no ground for objecting to the Civil Courts ascertaining the mesne profits due. It is however contended before me that as the land has been actually cultivated by the appellant for some years, it must be taken to be cultivable land, and being in a zamindari estate, it must be treated as a ryoti land and the findings to the contrary by the District Judge should not be accepted. Ryoti land is defined in the Estates Land Act as meaning cultivable land in an estate other than private land but does not include tank beds, thrashing floor etc. It certainly does not include waste land where no cultivation is ordinarily carried on. In Section 6 Clause 4 waste land and grazing land are treated as lands in which a person cannot get permanent rights of occupancy. This has been pointed out by the learned judge in Raja of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa Reddi  38 Mad. 738. Their observations are found at pages 740 & 741. When the definition of ryoti land speaks of cultivable land it seems to me that it means land that is ordinarily and usually cultivated and does not refer to waste land though even waste land can at times be cultivated with labour and expenditure of money, I think that the finding of the lower Court that this land is not ryoti land is correct.
2. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.