1. We must accept the findings now submitted, as the respondents do not appear and file any objection.
2. The 8th defendant will be liable to pay the arrears of rent claimed by the mortgagor landlord in the place of the 7th defendant, as he is the assignee of the former's right and the rent claimed accrued after the date of the assignment. We think the landlord is entitled to 6 years' arrears from the 8th defendant, for even though his liability arises from his privity of estate, the result of such privity is to make him bound by the covenants in the registered Kanom deed. As the rent is payable under such a covenant, we thick that Article 116, Indian Limitation Act, applies against him also. With all respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to follow the ruling of Miller, J., in Naduvil Edom Kelu Achan v. Voradarau Aiyar 24 Ind. Cas. 481 : 26 M.L.J. 283. We observe the learned Judge does not say what article applies to the case in his view, though be holds against the application of Article 116 of the Limitation Act.
3. Plaintiff cannot, however, get a decree for a larger amount for arrears than what was given to him by the 1st Court's decree, as he did not appeal against it.
4. In the result we must modify the decree of the lower Appellate Court by substituting the 8th defendant for the 7th defendant in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the 1st Court's decree, Plaintiff will be paid his costs of ibis second appeal by the 8th defendant, Time for redemption will be three months from this date.