John Wallis, C.J.

1. This appeal raises a question of some difficulty. In 1904 the plaintiff, jenmi, who was entitled to redeem in 1905 a kanom granted by him to the 2nd defendant in 1893, executed a melcharth in favour of the 1st defendant by which the latter became entitled to redeem the 2nd defendant on the expiry of his kanom and to hold the lands himself on a fresh kanom. The kanom debt payable to the 2nd defendant on redemption was subject to reduction by the amount of the arrears of rent due from the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff under the kanom even though a suit for the arrears had become barred, and the 1st defendant was required on redemption to deduct this amount from the kanom debt and pay it over to the plaintiff, or in other words to collect the arrears due to the plaintiff. He did nothing till 1909 when he assigned his rights under the melcharth to the kanomdar, the 2nd defendant, stipulating at the same time that the 2nd defendant should pay the plaintiff the arrears of rent due under the kanom which he had bound himself to collect and pay on redeeming the 2nd defendant.

2. One of the questions argued before us is Whether the plaintiff is entitled to sue on