1. The District Judge has held that the case did not come within the ruling in Venkatagopal v. Rangappa I.L.R., 7 Mad. 365, because, although the rents have always been paid in money, there has been a variation in the amount of the money paid.

2. It is argued, however, that there has, in fact, been no variation in this respect, inasmuch as the increases of payment arose from an increase in the extent of lands occupied, and that a decision on this question which was, it is said,-raised in the third issue was essential to a determination of whether there had been an implied contract to pay rent in money only. The question of the circumstances attending the variation has certainly not been gone into in either Court, and, if we considered it necessary, we should direct the question to be tried.

3. It appears to us, however, not necessary to test this point by a re-trial. In a recent set of cases, which came before this Bench from Ganjam--see Nilakanta v. Mahadevi Second Appeal No. 508 of 1889, in which the learned Judges said: "Both the courts have found that rents had been paid in money for a period of about 50 years. The District Judge has, however, come to the conclusion that