1. The plaintiff's case was that they held certain land part of which diluviated and that after diluvion a suit was brought to restrain the landlord from realizing full rent and a decree was obtained for proportionate reduction of rent. That was in the year 1906. In 1916 the lands re-formed and it appears that the landlord subsequently let them out to the defendants. The plaintiff, however, denied that they Bad ever relinquished their right to the diluviated lands and' brought a suit in 1921. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. There are certain findings of fact with which we are not concerned to prove title to the land and to prove that the suit is not barred.
2. The only point argued before us in second appeal is that as plaintiffs brought a suit after diluvion and got a decree for proportionate abatement of rent they had lost all rights to them. We do not think that the tenant obtaining' reduction of rent is a circumstance which, in the absence of any overt act showing an intention to relinquish those lands, would amount to relinquishment of his rights in the diluviated lands for all times. This view is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Arun Chandra Singh v. Kamini Kumar  41 Cal. 683 where it is held that it is necessary that it should be proved that apart from merely getting reduction of rent the landlords must also show that the tenants never intended to hold the lands again after they had re-formed. There is no evidence in the case to this effect and following that ruling the appeal must stand dismissed with costs.