Ramesam, J.

1. The order of the Sub-Collector, Ex. E-1, was passed on the appeal of Melam Surayya and two others. The written statement of the defendant which was carelessly drafted produces the impression that the order was passed on revision. The appeal of Surayya and others was filed on 14th November, 1916. and, though it was more than 30 days from the date of the Tahsildars order (10th October, 1916), the appellants stated that they heard of the order on 16th October, 1916, and so claimed that their appeal was within time. Mr. Lancashire called for a report on 18th April, 1917. 1 think it must be taken that he excused the delay, or, otherwise, he would not have called for a report and might have rejected the appeals as out of time. The Subordinate judge is not clear as to whether the order of the Sub-Collector was passed on appeal or on revision. I have now sent for all the originals of Exs. C, D, E, etc., and am satisfied that the order was on appeal. The second appeal fails so far as the land is concerned.

2. As to the claim for the assessment Rs. 2-2-6, the Subordinate judge is obviously in error. This does not relate to a case nor to damages for proceedings taken unde