Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The short question in this appeal is whether Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai AIR1942Mad585 was rightly decided. The appellant in the present case is the plaintiff in the suit, which he filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mayavaram, for recovery of possession of certain lands in an inam village and for payment to him by the second defendant of mesne profits. There are two defendants. The first defendant is the landholder. The second defendant has been admitted into possession of the property by the first defendant. The plaintiff says that he is entitled to occupancy rights in the land and that the landholder had no right to lease the land to the second defendant. He valued the relief under Section 7 (v)(c) of the Court-fees Act at fifteen times the net value of the kudiwaram. He deducted the rent payable to the landholder and the cost of cultivation including labour charges. In Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai AIR1942Mad585 Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., construed Section 7 (v)(c) as meaning the net income from the land after deducting from the gross yield merely the charges incurred for cultivation and labour. He considered t