Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question to be decided in this second appeal relates to relief against forfeiture. The lease is what is known as a mulgeni lease executed by parties in South Kanara. The lessees have been in possession of the land in question for nearly three quarters of a century. It is not denied that the defendants made default in payment of rent and under the terms of the lease this default entail forfeiture. The Court of first instance relieved against forfeiture absolutely, that is to say, no time was fixed for the payment of the arrears of rent. The learned Subordinate Judge modified the Munsifs decree by providing that the rent shall be paid in two months: thus, although there has been some difference in a matter of detail, both the Courts have granted relief against forfeiture.

2. For the plaintiff-appellant it is contended that the forfeiture cannot be relieved against. The argument is put in this way: Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the act does not apply to agricultural leases and it is urged that the present lease which is an agricultural lease is not consequently governed by Section

114. It is, of course, true that Section 114