The Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to calculate the net profits in accordance with the judgment in Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai2 and pay the deficit Court-fee within a certain time. As this was not done he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who agreed with the Subordinate Judge, but at the same time allowed a further deduction to be made in respect of expenses. The appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge. In the first place this appeal came before Rajamannar, J., who referred it to a Bench for decision as he disagreed with the opinion of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. In our Judgment Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai,2 was wrongly decided. When construing the words “net profits” the Court has to have regard to the subject-matter of the suit, here the kudiwaram right. The plaintiff is merely entitled to the the kudiwaram, and the value of that right can only be arrived after deducting what he has to pay to the landholder by way of rent and, of course, the expenses incurred by him in cultivating the land. The Judgment of Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Maroof v. Ayyakannu Naicker1 which had reference to Court-fee payable under section 7(v)(d) of the Act is very much in point. We may add that the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Government accepts the contention of the plaintiff. The appeal will be allowed and the suit will be remanded to the Subordinate Judge for decision on the merits after collecting any extra Court-fee which may be payable on the basis indicated in this judgment. The Subordinate Judge will fix the time within which the extra Court-fee, if any, is to be paid. The costs of the appeal will be made costs in the suit. B.V.V. ----- Appeal allowed.