Abdur Rahman, J.

1. This is a batch of thirty second appeals. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Sitarama Rao. He contends that in the absence of a provision in the Estates Land Act conferring a right on the appellants to prefer second appeals, these are not competent and are liable to be dismissed. The question to decide is whether they are.

2. They arise out of objections made by the respondent-landholder for appraisement of the crop or division of the produce under Section 74 of the Estates Land Act. On receiving these applications, the Collector deputed an officer, as required by Section 75 of the Act, to make the division or appraisement. The Officer appointed by the Collector carried out the orders and made a report. Objections were raised on behalf of the appellants to this. They were to the effect that the rent was payable in money and not in kind. These objections were disallowed. The appellants went up to the District Court in appeal but the Collectors decision was affirmed. They have preferred the present appeals against the orders of the District Court.

3. Sub-clauses (d) and (e) to Section 75 (8) which contain the provisions relevant to the point to be de