1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated as follows:

2. The second defendant is the jenmi of the suit land. The 1st defendant has been holding it under a kanom dated 28th January 1909 (Ex. I) for 12 years. On the 5th January 1919 the 2nd defendant executed a melcharath in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. A, and the present suit is filed on its basis for redemption of the kanom. The 1st defendant pleaded that there is an agreement between him and the jenmi for a renewal of the kanom dated 19th December 1918, (Ex. III); and the kanom was actually renewed by a registered document Ex. IV dated 19th December 1920. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs melcharath was obtained with notice of the defendants agreement for renewal.

3. The District Munsif found that Ex. III was not a genuine document and decreed the plaintiffs suit. What he meant was that Ex. III was not executed on the date it bears; not that it was not executed by the jenmi.

4. On appeal the District Judge found that Ex. III was a genuine document and that it was executed on the date it bears and there is no reason to suspect that it was a collusive document. He then observed:

The whole thing de