1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff claimed arrears of house rent from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 20 per month from December, 1952 to March, 1955. The house was given by the defendant in usufructuary mortgage to the plaintiff by a registered document dated the 30th July, 1952. On the same date the plaintiff let out the house on lease to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 and a Kirayanama was executed to this effect by the defendant on this date. Both the lower Courts have held that the usufructuary mortgage and the Kirayanama are not parts of one and the same transaction, but they are two different transactions and the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for house rent, to the extent of Rs. 500 from December, 1952, till the filing of the present suit at the rate of! Rs. 20 per month.

2. On behalf of the defendant who has preferred this appeal it was contended, in the first place, that the usufructuary mortgage and the Kirayanama are parts of one and the same transaction and so the plaintiff cannot realise the amount of house rent due from the defendant by a separate suit based upon the Kirayanama. The principle! to be applied in a ca