1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent in the Revenue Court. The facts are that the plaintiffs, or their representatives, having lent money to the defendants, or their representatives, took a usufructuary mortgage of certain zemindari property. The mortgagees then made a letting of the property to the defendants on the terms that the defendants should pay a certain sum in cash (which included a sum sufficient to pay the Government revenue). In addition to this they agreed to deliver a certain amount in bhusa, chari, grain and sugarcane. In the kabulict the expression 'rasum zemindari' is used. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiffs but calculated the value of the produce at Rs. 24 per annum. The plaintiffs claimed interest on all the arrears of rent from the time they became due up to the time that they were paid. This included interest on a sum of Rs. 200 which the defendants paid into Court. The first Court disallowed the interest on the Rs. 200 even prior to the suit. The plaintiffs appealed and contended that the value of the produce was more than Rs. 24 per annum. They further contended that they were entitled to interest on the Rs 200 which had been disallowed by the Court of first instance. The defendants filed a cross-appeal on the strength of the ruling in Sisram v. Asghar Ali 16 Ind. Cas. 422 : 35 A. 19 : 10 A.L.J. 416 and they contended that having regard to the provisions of the sections 56 and 86 of the Land Revenue Act the plaintiffs were not entitled to the bhusa, and other produce which we have mentioned. This contention found favour with the lower Appellate Court, who disallowed the plaintiffs' claim in respect of the bhusa, etc. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal and contend that the Court below was wrong in disallowing their claim for the bhusa, etc., and also that they should have he interest which the Court of first instance had disallowed them. On the first point, namely, the liability of the defendants to deliver the bhusa, etc., or to pay its equivalent in cash, we think the Court below was wrong. It is quite clear that on the construction of the habuliat the defendants agreed to deliver the produce as part of their rent. The snit was brought in the Revenue Court and the claim which the plaintiffs made to it was as rent. In the ruling referred to the plaintiffs sued in the Civil Court to recover the rasum zemindari as something over and above the rent. The ruling accordingly does not apply. On the second point we think that the plaintiffs were entitled to the interest on the Rs. 200 up to the time of payment into Court. The parties very properly, instead of prolonging the litigation, have agreed to a lump sum for the interest and the value of the produce. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and restore the decree of the first Court with Rs. 10 added. We wish to say that the calculation of Rs. 24 as the value of the produce is not to be taken as a final decision that this is the value for all time. The value will necessarily vary in different years. The appellants will have their costs both in this and the lower Appellate Court.