JUDGMENT Reilly, J. 1. It has been argued for the defendants in this appeal that what is claimed by the plaintiff is tree-tax, not rent within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. It is true that all but a small fraction of the amount claimed is calculated on the trees on the land in question; but it has been admitted before me that the defendants hold the land as ryots, and they are now willing to pay rent on the land as ryoti land. According to the muchilika Ex. A, they clearly hold the land and do not merely enjoy the trees on it. But according to the muchilika what they are to pay to the plaintiff except for areas on which crops are raised is to vary with the number of mature trees. That method of calculating rent for the land appears to be permissible under the Estates Land Act: see Rajah of Ramnad v. Kamid Rowthen A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 22. It is admitted that the amount now claimed is in accordance with the calculation in a previous suit regarding the same land and trees between the same parties in a revenue Court. The District Judge indeed refers to a number of decrees. I see no sufficient reason to interfere with the District Judges decision. 2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.