JUDGMENT Sadasiva Aiyar, J. 1. This petition (C.R.P. No. 74 of 1912) and the connected petitions have arisen out of 4 suits brought for the Kattubadi on Inam lands held by Karnams. The District Munsif has given a perfunctory finding (a) no Kattubadi is due (b) that the claim for Kattubadi is barred as it was never paid before. Ramachandra v. Jagan Mohan (1891) I.L.R. 15 M. 161. 2. The mere fact that "it was never paid before" cannot bar the suit for Kattubadi due on a land, if the suit is brought within 3 years of the date, when that particular years Kattubadi fell due. It was only if the tenant had denied the landlords title to get Kattubadi more than 12 years before suit, and had refused to pay it, basing the refusal on such denial of title in the landlord to recover it, that the landlords claims would be barred (See Ramachandra v. Jagan Mohana (1891) I.L.R. 15 M. 161. There is no evidence whatever in these cases that the defendants refused to pay Kattubadi in any year on the basis of a denial of the landlords right or that they ever denied the landlords right at all before this suit was brought. 3. As regards the right to the Kattubadi, the only evidence on the question of such right is that of one of the defendants themselves who wrote the plaintiffs account as village Kurnam. He says "defendant in 395 owes Rs. 5-14-3, defendant in 395 owes the same. Defendant in 396 owes Rupees 11-12-6, defendant in 397 Rs. 7-4-0. In 1317 defendant in 397 paid Rs. 6 and there is a balance of Rs. He says "defendant in 395 owes Rs. 5-14-3, defendant in 395 owes the same. Defendant in 396 owes Rupees 11-12-6, defendant in 397 Rs. 7-4-0. In 1317 defendant in 397 paid Rs. 6 and there is a balance of Rs. 1-4-0," and he goes on to say that these amounts so "due" and "owing" were not demanded or collected if the proprietor found that the Kurnams did their duties properly (except in the case of the Kurnam who was the defendant in 397 who was paying all along) and that in the cases of others, if "they had not worked properly the proprietor would have demanded the money." It is a perverted misreading of this evidence on the Munsifs part, rather the Munsif committed an error of law in holding on this evidence that Kattubadi is not due and owing, simply because the proprietor used to mercifully not demand or collect it, if the Kurnams were obedient, especially in the suit 397, where the defendant has been paying Jodi all along, it is impossible to understand how the Munsif arrived at his illegal finding. 4. In the result, the Munsifs decisions are reversed and the plaintiff will obtain a decree in each suit for the relief claimed therein with costs in both courts (interest at six per cent, from the date of plaint will be allowed).