1. The question for decision in this case is one of limitation. The suit is by a land-holder for recovery from a ryot of rent for Fasli 1315 ending on the 13th June 1903. It was instituted in a Revenue Court (before the Sub-Collector of Husur) after the Estates Land Act came into force. More than three years, but less than six years, had elapsed at the time of the institution of the suit after the rent became due. Both the lower Courts held that the suit was barred by limitation under Part A, Article 8 of the Schedule to the Estates Land Act I of 1908 which provides a period of three years from the date the rent became due.

2. The contention in second appeal is that the rent being due under a registered instrument and six years having been allowed for such a suit according to the decisions of this Court, holding Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act to be applicable to such a suit, and the Estates Land Act having come into force (on 1st July 1908) only after the three years allowed under the Act had elapsed from the date of the rent accruing due, the Act ought to be held to be not applicable to the case. The question has already been the subject of consideration