(3)Such suit may be instituted on any of the following grounds, and on no others, namely: -(a)that the relation of landholder and ryot does or does riot exist;(b)that the land is not liable to the payment of rent;(c)that the land, although entered in the record-of-rights as being held rent-free, is liable to the payment of rent;(d)that any entry made under clauses (d), (e) and (j) of section 165 is incorrect;(e)that special conditions in respect of holding at a favourable rate have been wrongly recorded or omitted;(f)that the [Collector] [Substituted for the words 'Revenue officer' by section 3(1), of the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1934 (Madras Act VIII of 1934).] has wrongly fixed the date from which the operation of the settled rent under the provisions of section 177 should take effect. The Government shall not be made a defendant in any such suit.[***] [Original sub-section (4) was omitted and original sub-section (5) was re-numbered as sub-section (4) by section 94(ii) of the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1934 (Madras Act VIII of 1934).]
