JUDGMENT
Adami, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits, in one of which the rent for 1322 to 1325 at the rate of Rs. 22-2-15 dams was claimed and in the other the rent was claimed at this rate also for 1325. The suits were decreed by both the Courts.
2. The chief point urged by Mr. Kulwant Sahai in Appeal No. 860 is that the claim for the rent of 1322 is barred. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of the arrears of rent from the landlord on the 24th November 1917. On the 17th December 1916 he had taken a thicca of the village. The argument is that the assignment of the arrears of rent does not confer upon the assignee the right to collect arrears of rent within the limitation laid down in the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is argued that the debt is a money debt and that the time limit laid down in Article 110 of the Limitation Act applies. This contention must succeed. It has been decided in Calcutta in the case of Ahmedullah Bhuiya v. Kaminuddin Patwari 2 Ind. Cas. 989, that though an assignment of arrears of rent does not take away from that rent its character as such, yet following the previous ruling in Mohendra Nath Kalamoree v. Koilash Chandra Dogra 4 C.W.N. 605, the suit by the assignee to recover such arrears does not fall under Article 2(b) of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act but under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, and the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the longer period of limitation allowed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. A ruling to the same effect of this Court will be found in the case of Gajadhnr Prasad v. Thakur Prasad Singh 38 Ind. Cas. 102 : 1 P.L.J. 506 : 3 P.L.W. 179. The contention must, therefore, prevail and the decree of the lower Courts must be modified by deducting the rent allowed for 1322 by these Courts.
3. Mr. Kulwant Sahai on behalf of the appellant does not press some other points mentioned by him in Appeal No. 860.
4. With regard to Appeal No. 891 dealing with the rent of 1325, the only point put forward is that the Courts below have not found that there were any kists arranged between the parties. The lower Appellate Court, however, has some to a finding that the last kist is the kist of Jaith and that this saves the suit from being premature. It has given good and sufficient reasons for finding that it was recognised by the parties that the last kist fell in Jaith, and this is a finding of fast and the suit cannot be held to be premature.
5. On the question raised between the parties as to whether the rent should be Rs. 22-2-15 dams as claimed by the plaintiff or Rs. 8-2-15 dams as admitted by the defendants, the lower Appellate Court has some to a finding that as a fact the rent is Rs. 22-2-15 dams, and in second appeal we cannot interfere with this finding. It must be held then that the decision is that the rent payable for the years in suit is Rs. 22-2-15 dams. Except to the extent mentioned above as to the rent of 1322 in Appeal No. 800, these appeals are dismissed but without costs.
Das, J.
6. I agree.