JUDGMENT 1. Having regard to the small amount of the kanom (Rs. 5) the transaction must be regarded as, in substance, a lease. It is not alleged or shown that the rent reserved is lower than the usual rent for such land, and the object of the lease is essentially to bring waste land into cultivation. In this view the engagement made by the jenmi to pay the tenant the value of his improvements is binding upon the Collector under Section 32, Act II of 1864, Madras, extended to purchasers at a revenue sale by Section 41. The operation of Sections 2 and 42 is limited by the provisions of Sections 32 and 41. The Plaintiff, therefore, before he can obtain possession of the hill purchased by him at the revenue sale, must pay the tenant compensation for his improvements. The tenant has not objected to being evicted before the expiration of the term of twelve years fixed in his lease, but claims only compensation for improvements. 2. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.