The plaintiff is entitled to deduct rent payable to the landholder and expenses incurred in cultivating the land when calculating the net profits for the purpose of court fees under Section 7 (v)(c) of the Court-fees Act.

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 that the plaintiff in such a case as this was not entitled to make any deduction in respect of the melwaram.

2. The Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to calculate the net profits in accordance with the judgment in Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai AIR1942Mad585 and pay the deficit Court-fee within a certain time. As this was not done he dimsissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who agreed with the Subordinate Judge, but at the same time allowed a further deduction to be made in respect of expenses. The appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge. In the first place this appeal came before Rajamannar, J., who referred it-to a Bench for decision as he disagreed with the opinion of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.

3. In our Judgment Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai AIR1942Mad585 was wrongly decided. When construing the words " net profits " the Court has to have regard to the subject-matter of the suit, here the kudiwaram right. The plaintiff is merely entitled to the the kudiwaram and the value of that right can only be arrived after deducting what he has to pay to the landholder by way of rent and, of course, the expenses incurred by him in cultivating the land. The Judgment of Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Maroof v. Ayyakannu Naicker I.L.R. (1934)Mad. 1051 : 68 M.L.J. 755 which had reference to Court-fee payable under Section 7 (v)(d) of the Act is very much in point. We may add that the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Government accepts the contention of the plaintiff.

4. The appeal will be allowed and the suit will be remanded to the Subordinate Judge for decision on the merits after collecting any extra Court-fee which may be payable on the basis indicated in this judgment. The Subordinate Judge will fix the time within which the extra Court-fee, if any, is to be paid. The costs of the appeal will be made costs in the suit,