Judgment :- 1. This case arises in the Travancore area wherein where is a system called thiruppuvaram which means that the State assigns the right to recover part of the land revenue from the tenant, to the jenmi. The grantee is entitled to recover the part from the tenant who is liable to pay the entire land revenue. The plaintiffs as thiruppuvaram holders (as the grantees are called) sued to recover arrears of thiruppuvaram from the years 1116 to 1122. The defendant-tenant pleaded partial discharge in respect of the amount claimed for 1116. He contended further that on account of the revision of land revenue made in the year 1121 liability for thiruppuvaram which was assigned in favour of the plaintiffs had ceased to exist. Another contention raised related to the price of paddy which was claimed by the plaintiffs at what is called nirak rate which means the price prevailing in the market on the date of the plaint. The defendant's contention upon this point was that the price the plaintiffs are entitled to get is only the commutation price which is 11 chuckrams per standard para as fixed by Government in the year 1081. There was also a contention as regards the liability for the interest on arrears claimed by the plaintiffs. 2. The learned Munsiff found in favour of the defendant upon all the points but the learned judge in appeal by the plaintiffs took a different view and reversed the Munsiff's judgment except as regards the plea of partial discharge of the dues claimed for the year 1116, as regards which there does not appear to have been an appeal to the judge, it having been conceded even in the trial court that the plea was true and may be upheld. 3. As regards the non-liability pleaded from the year 1121 on account of the revision of land revenue, the Travancore Proclamation dated 25.11.1121 called the Travancore Land Tax Proclamation, 1121, which fixes the basic tax provided by S. 8 that: "Thiruppuvaram of Melvaram charged on and payable in respect of any land shall continue to be paid to those entitled to it as heretofore in addition to the basic tax thereon payable to Our Government." In view of this provision, the conclusion reached by the learned judge is correct though he has not relied upon it in his judgment. As regards the rate at which paddy is to be valued, a decision of a Full Bench of five judges of the erstwhile Travancore High Court in Sirkar v. Nilakantaru Thupparu Nambudiripad (LII T.L.R. 443 = XXVI T.L.J. 226) has held that a Thiruppuvaram holder is entitled to price of paddy at the nirak rate. Following that decision I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to get price of paddy at that rate and that the conclusion reached by the learned judge is correct. Even on this point the learned judge has not referred to the aforesaid authority afforded by the Full Bench though he relies upon a later decision of a Division Bench of the Travancore High Court in XXIX T.L.J. 688 which took the same view but without any discussion or reference to the earlier decision of the Full Bench. The decision relied upon by the learned judge is authority also for the position that a Thiruppuvaram holder is entitled to interest upon the arrears. The two decisions of the Travancore High Court and the Proclamation aforementioned conclude this case against the appellant. 4. The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Dismissed.