1. The District Judge when he says that there was an implied contract to pay tiruppani cess which was voluntary and unconnected with the holding, as well as the other cesses which were connected with the holding evidently did not mean to say that there was a legally enforceable contract, for he held that the trepan cess Tiruppani means service of God and the cess was levied for the purpose of reparing certain buildings dedicated for charitable purposes was not legally enforceable. He appears only to have meant that the period for which the cess had been paid was long enough to support an implied contract if the cess was of such a character that a contract to pay it might reasonably and properly be implied.
2. The cess is one of an essentially voluntary character, and therefore its payment for a number of years cannot be a ground for implying that there was a legal contract or obligation to continue to pay it.
3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.