These four second appeals arise out of four suits, two of which were instituted by two ryots for the grant of patta under

section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for Fasli 1353 and two by the landholder against the same two ryots for

arrears of rent due for fasli 1351 to fasli 1353 under section 77 of that Act. The ryots were the appellants in all the four

appeals preferred to the District Judge of Madura from whose decision the landholder has preferred these four second

appeals. The main question which arose for determination in all these four suits and appeals was whether the landholder

was entitled to levy a charge for water drawn by the ryots from the tank of the Landholder for cultivating dry lands

comprised in their holdings with wet crops. It has been found by. the learned District Judge that the solum of the tank

vested in the landholder; that the water stored in the tank became his and that for water drawn from the tank by them

the ryots were liable to pay water rate to the landholder. On this finding the landholder would be entitled to claim the

water rate as part of the “rent” within the meaning of section 3(2)(ii) of the Madras Estates Land Acts. The learned

District Judge, however, disallowed the landholder’s claim for the rate on the ground that it was barred by res judicata

by reason of the prior adjudication in two suits. for rent for fasli 1344 between the same parties. The former judgment is

marked as Ex. P-4. The learned Judge made it clear at the same time that the bar of res judicata was confined only to

the holdings covered by patta Nos. 7 and 13. with which alone the former suits were concerned. The contention of Mr.

Ahmed Meeran, the learned advocate for the appellant, is that the decision of the lower appellate Court on the question

of res judicata is erroneous.

The facts connected with the previous litigation and the nature and effect of the prior adjudication have now to be

stated. The landholder brought S.S. No. 806 of 1936 and 808 of 1936 in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Melur

Division against the two ryots with whom we are now concerned, claiming arrears of rent due on the holdings for faslis

1342 to 1344 both inclusive. The tharam assessment or the dry rate payable in respect of the holdings was paid by the

ryots but they disputed their liability to pay the extra charge claimed by the landholder for water drawn from his tank by

the ryots for cultivating wet crops on their dry lands. During the pendency of these two suits, the two applications (M.P.

Nos. 74 and 75 of 1936) were filed by the landholder before the same Collector under section 30(2) of the Madras

Estates Land Act for enhancement of rent due on the lands in pattas. Nos. 7 and 13 on the ground that he had effected

an improvement to these lands by allowing water from a tank which he had maintained in a good condition, to be taken

to those dry lands for the cultivation of wet crops and thereby caused the production of these lands to be increased.

M.P. Nos. 74 and 75 of 1936 related to faslis 1342 and 1343 and were evidently filed to meet the objection of the

ryots; that the landholder was, in effect, claiming an enhancement of rent in the two suits filed by him for recovery of a

water rate, which he had not been collecting before, and that the landholder should have followed the procedure

prescribed by section 30 of the Madras Estates Land Act. Whatever be the reasons which. led to the filing of M.P.

Nos. 74 and 75 of 1936, they were dismissed by the Collector on 17th November, 1936 on the ground that the

improvements on the basis of which the enhancement was claimed, had not been registered in conformity with section

32(1)(a) of the Act. The order of the Collector is marked Ex. P-3. On 1st December, 1936, the Collector dismissed

the suits for arrears of rent filed under section 77 of the Estates Land Act (S.S. Nos. 806 and 808 of 1936) by a

judgment marked as Ex. P-4 (which omitting unnecessary portions) ran as follows:

“Th