The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between cultivable and non-cultivable land, the definition of ryot, and the limitations of the Revenue Courts' jurisdiction in cases involving old waste lands and pasturage rent.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1.The plaintiff, the Rajah of Venkatagiri, is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendants are the tenants of certain lands in the Venkatagiri Estate. The said lands according to the 3rd paragraph of the plaint are waste lands which have been always used for the pasturing of cattle. Pasture rent is alleged to have been collected from the defendants for the use of these lands till Fusli 1317 at the rate of five annas one pie per acre for about 40 years. In the Muchilikas for 1317 and 1318, however, the defendants agreed to pay rent for the lands at a higher rate if any person applied for the grant of lands on Dharkast for purposes of cultivation. They further agreed by these Muchilikas to quit possession of the lands on demand if they refused to take up the lands at the higher rate. The suit was brought, claiming 3 reliefs:

(a) Ejectment of the defendants, because on the 3rd August 1907 the defendants, when notice was issued to them to take up the lands themselves at the higher rate, failed to take them up.

(b) For recovery of rent for Fuslies 1317 and 1318 at the rates offered by a person who applied for grant of the lands on Dharkast in April 1907.

(c) For mesne profits subsequent to date of suit till delivery, that is mesne profits for Fasli 1319 &c.

4. There was first the question, whether this suit, which was originally filed in the Munsifs Court, was cognizable by the said Court. The Munsif returned the plaint to be presented to the Revenue Court. The Revenue Court again returned it to be presented to the Munsifs Court. There was an appeal against this order of the Revenue Court to the District Court, which set aside the Revenue Courts order and directed it to try the suit. The question as to which Court has jurisdiction to try this case depends it need hardly be said upon the allegations in the plaint and upon the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint. Assuming for this purpose that the allegations in the plaint, supplemented by the plaintiffs documents are correct, it seems to us clear that the lands in dispute fall within the definition of old waste in Section 3 Clause 7 of the Madras Estates Land Act. Old waste includes according to that definition, any land which, not being private land, has continuously remained un-cultivated and in the possession of the Zemindar for 10 years or has at the time of any letting by the landholder after the passing of the Act remained without any occupancy rights being held therein within a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately prior to such letting. The plaint lands are therefore old waste lands. But old waste lands might be of two kinds. They might be old waste lands which are also ryoti lands or they might be old waste lands which are not ryoti lands. But a ryoti land in order to come under the definition of old waste should be land in respect of which before the passing of the Act " the landlord had obtained the final decree of a competent Civil Court establishing that the ryot has no occupancy right." See the last paragraph of Clause 7 Section 3. Ryoti land is described in Section 3 Clause 16 as cultivable land other than private land, communal land or service tenure land. It is clear from the Muchilika filed in this case that the plaint land is pasture waste and it is not permanently cultivable. When ryoti land is defined as cultivable land, we think it means land permanantly cultivable for all practical purposes and not land which might be occasionally cultivated. This is made clear by Section 6 Clause 4 of the Act, which says that waste land let under a contract for the pasturage of cattle and reserve forest land let under a contract for the temporary cultivation of agricultural crops shall not by reason only of such letting for pasturage or for temporary cultivation, become ryoti land. Hence land fit usually only for pasturing cattle and not for ploughing and raising agricultural crops is not ryoti land. The land in dispute i