JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal in a suit for profits. The appellant is the defendant lambardar. Two points have been pressed on his behalf. 2. The first is whether a decree should have been given on gross rental or on recorded collections. The lower appellate Court finds that the amount of arrears shown is probably large, that the village is canal irrigated, that the bulk of the tenants are occupancy tenants and that the defendant has not filed proper accounts and such accounts as he has filed are clearly and admittedly wrong. On these findings it is impossible to disturb the lower Court's decree allowing profits on the basis of gross rental. 3. The second point pressed is that there is an obvious arithmetical mistake in the judgment in reference to the rent of khudkasht land. The learned Judge says that on the basis of the patwari's rates, which he accepts, the rent of khudkasht land comes to Rs. 464 but in the calculation which he has given just below be has substituted the figure 958. It is practically admitted that a mistake has been made and we allow this plea and reduce the decretal amount by substituting Rs. 464 for Rs. 958 as the khudkasht rental. 4. Cross-objections have been filed by the plaintiff-respondent and are pressed on two points. The first is, that the lower Court, following a published ruling of this Court to which one of us was a party, has held that when it gives a decree on the basis of gross rental it cannot allow in addition any sums collected on account of arrears of previous years. This proposition has been held in two Bench rulings of this Court and we are not prepared to dissent from it in the present case. 5. The other point relates to a small amount of Rs. 81-4 received from Government as compensation for a small area acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The amount instead of being paid to all the proprietors was for some reason paid to the lambardar who apparently has not given the plaintiff his share. Objection was taken in the lower Court that this could not properly be treated as sewai income recoverable in a profits suit under the Tenancy Act. As a matter of law this contention appears to us well founded. Objection was taken in the lower Court that this could not properly be treated as sewai income recoverable in a profits suit under the Tenancy Act. As a matter of law this contention appears to us well founded. The result is that the appeal is allowed in regard to rent of khudkasht land to the extent indicated above but is otherwise dismissed. We allow no costs to the appellant as he might have obtained amendment of the decree on the only point on which his appeal succeeded by applying to the Court below. The cross-objections are dismissed with costs.