Judgment.- These are four allied cases where the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla has directed a Court-fee to be paid ad valorem, on a valuation of Rs. 15,000 in the three suits covered by the Civil Revision Petitions 414 to 416, and of Rs. 9,000 in the suit covered by C. R. P. No. 456 of 1950, for recovery of possession of the lands in which the archakas claimed occupancy rights and from which they claimed to have been illegally ejected by orders of the District Court, Guntur in O. Ps., filed under section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act by the trustees of the temples acting under instructions from the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. In some suits there are other reliefs also claimed like accounting, mesne profits, etc., for which separate Court-fee has been paid and about which there is no dispute before me. The only dispute is regarding the mode of valuation for recovery of possession of these alleged occupancy lands after the archakas had parted, with possession, under the orders of the District Court in the O. Ps., by delivering possession to the trustees. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the first three suits the plaintiffs could value the relief regarding the recovery of possession under section 7(xi)(e) of the Court-fees Act as in a case of illegal ejection of an occupancy tenant by a landlord by forte, and pay only an ad valorem Court-fee of Rs. 112-8-0 on the amount of assumed rent of Rs. 1,000 payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, and that the plaintiffs in the fourth suit could pay Court-fee for this relief on Rs. 600. All these petitioners were claiming to pay Court-fee for the relief of recovery of possession of these alleged occupancy lands, with whose possession they had parted by due process of law, under the orders of the District Court in O. Ps., on the wholly absurd and untenable ground that they were illegally ejected by the landlord. Even if the District Court’s orders in the O. Ps. were wrong in law, there was no illegal ejection but only legal ejection by process of law. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs in all the four suits were bound to pay ad valorem court-fee, under section 7, clause v(c), on an amount of Rs. Even if the District Court’s orders in the O. Ps. were wrong in law, there was no illegal ejection but only legal ejection by process of law. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs in all the four suits were bound to pay ad valorem court-fee, under section 7, clause v(c), on an amount of Rs. 15,000 in the first three suits, and on an amount of Rs. 9,000 in the fourth suit, being 15 times the “net profits” arising from the land during the year next before the date of presenting of the plaints. He held that as strangers (subsequent lessees from the trustees) were added in the first three suits, and as the title to the kudiwaram rights in the lands was sought to be got declared, section 7(v)(c) of the Court-fees Act alone would apply. He relied for this position on a ruling by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Leach, C.J., and Lakshmana Rao, J., in Kuppuswami Pillai v. The Taj Fraksha Thaikkal Estates by its managing trustees Katheeb M.K. Noor Sheriff and another1, on a reference by Rajamannar, J. I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is clear to me that in a case like this where a plaintiff is claiming occupancy rights in lands with whose possession he has parted with legally and peacefully,and under orders of Court in judicial proceedings, and where a declaration of the title of the kudiwaram was sought and strangers were added, the section applicable for paying the Court-fee for recovery of possession is section 7, clause v(c) as held by the lower Court relying on the Bench ruling, quoted above. Only, in calculating 15 times the net profits, the lower Court, in my opinion, erred in adopting the Rs. 1,000 and 600 shown as annual profits by the petitioners as the net profits. The cultivation expenses for raising the crops should be deducted, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the value of the harvested crops (or annual profits, which was Rs. 1,000 and 600), and the rent or melwaram payable to the landholder should also be deducted afterwards from the above figure in order to get the net profits. Indeed, “annual profit,” in the usual sense of the word, means the gross income or the price of the produce got from the lands. 1,000 and 600), and the rent or melwaram payable to the landholder should also be deducted afterwards from the above figure in order to get the net profits. Indeed, “annual profit,” in the usual sense of the word, means the gross income or the price of the produce got from the lands. It is obvious that unless the cultivation expenses are deducted, it will not be correct to call that net profits to all. Usually we understand by net profits, from a land, what a man gets over and above his cultivation expenses. From the amount thus arrived at after deducting the cultivation expenses, a further amount must be deducted, in these cases, towards the rent or melwaram admittedly payable to the landholder, under the ruling in Kuppuswami Pillai v. The Taj Fraksha Thaikkal Estate by its managing trustees Katheeb M.K. Noor Sheriff and another1, as these are only suits for establishing title to kudiwaram alone. [His Lordship then discussed, the evidence and calculated the actual court-fee payable on an application of the above principles and concluded]. Mr. Krishnamurthi and Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, for the petitioners, urged that in several appeals decided in this Court, by Benches and single Judges, archakas, like these petitioners, have been allowed to enjoy under the temples, a suitable portion of the land (fixed in each case) to provide them with the wherewithal for doing service to the temples, and have been directed to surrender only the remaining lands to the temples. They prayed that such orders might be made in these cases also by me now, in order to save the archakas from wasting money in Court-fees and litigation. But, surely, these revision petitions, concerned only with the Court-fees due for recovery of possession, are not the proper forum for agitating this matter. When the suits come on for hearing, the trial Court will doubtless consider the various rulings of this Court regarding that matter, and pass appropriate orders suitable to each case after hearing both sides. No doubt, temples depend on archakas and archakas depend on temples, and a give and take policy is conducive to the welfare of both. When the suits come on for hearing, the trial Court will doubtless consider the various rulings of this Court regarding that matter, and pass appropriate orders suitable to each case after hearing both sides. No doubt, temples depend on archakas and archakas depend on temples, and a give and take policy is conducive to the welfare of both. The petitioners are at liberty, even before the deficit Court-fee is paid within the time fixed, to negotiate with the trustees of the temples and with the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on the basis of the judgments of this Court directing such equitable division, and arrive at just and equitable settlements appropriate to each case. I am sure the Hindu Religious Endowments Board will be as anxious to avoid wasteful, acrimonious and unnecessary litigation as the archakas but the archakas must be reasonable in their demands. In all these civil revision petitions, all the parties will bear their own costs, as I am ordering only ad valorem court-fee for this relief on roughly half the amount fixed by the lower Court. K.C. ----- Order modified.