JUDGMENT 1. The finding of the lower appellate court is that the proper rent for the defendants land according to the rates prevailing in the village is what is claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint. It has also found that it was on account of a usage entitling Velama holders to pay a lower rate of rent that the rent levied from the defendants vendor was lower than the normal rate. Having given these findings, the lower appellate court considered itself bound by the decision in Manavikrama v. Rama Pattar I.L.R. (1897) M. 275 to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover rent at the rate claimed. The learned Judge himself distinguishes the facts of that case from those in the present case, but still he has felt himself bound to follow that ease. In our opinion, that decision has no application at all to this case. There, the Zamorin sought to recover from the defendant in the suit certain fees on the ground of usage he contended that the usage set up governed the incidents of all contracts between him and the holders of perpetual leases under him. It was held that in order that such an incident of the contract might bind a purchaser for valuable consideration from one of the Zamorins tenants, the latter was bound to show that the purchaser was aware that such an incident was appended to all contracts of perpetual tenancy between him and his tenants. The plaintiff here is not seeking to enforce the payment of rent on the ground of any usage; on the other hand, he claims what he contends is the normal rent for the defendants land according to the rates in the village. And, the usage is alleged only as an explanation for the payment of a lower rate by the defendants vendor. No question therefore arises of the defendant being aware of any usage sought to be enforced against him. The defendant took the land subject to the payment of rent properly due for lands in the village. He did not set up any express or implied contract to prove any different rate of rent payable by him. Assuming he was under the impression that the rate of rent paid by his vendor could betakes advantage of by himself, that can be no reason for refusing to tie plaintiff the proper rate of rent. He did not set up any express or implied contract to prove any different rate of rent payable by him. Assuming he was under the impression that the rate of rent paid by his vendor could betakes advantage of by himself, that can be no reason for refusing to tie plaintiff the proper rate of rent. We reverse the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the count of first instance with costs both here and in the lower appellate court.