JUDGMENT 1. The facts of this case have been so fully set forth in the judgments of the Courts below, as also in the judgment of this Court printed at p. 22 of the paper-book that it seems unnecessary to recapitulate them. The only point which arises in this appeal is as to whether the Plaintiff can maintain this suit. Can she measure the land and sue the dar-mokuraridar for rent of the excess land ? 2. We would here mention that the mokuraridar, the Defendant No. 4, has presented a petition to us saying that he has no objection to be made a Plaintiff, and praying that under sec. 32, C. P. C., we may add his name as a Plaintiff in the suit. We, however, are of opinion that it would not be right at this late stage of the proceedings to add the Defendant No. 4 as a Plaintiff and so alter the whole frame of the suit, and moreover on the view we take of the case it seems unnecessary to us to do so. 3. The first Court held that the suit was maintainable. The Subordinate Judge has held that it was not maintainable and has dismissed the suit. He was of opinion that under the terms of the Defendant No. 1's lease the Plaintiff zemindar had no right to measure the lands and the suit, if brought at all could only be brought conjointly by the representative of the superior landlord and by that of the mokuraridar. 4. The Plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of the suit. 5. On behalf of the Appellant it has been urged (1) that the Plaintiff and the mokuraridar are not joint landlords. So the provisions of sec. 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not make it necessary for the zemindar and mokuraridar to sue jointly : and (2) that the suit is not one under the provisions of sec. 52 of the Tenancy Act, but one based upon the terms of a contract entered into before the passing of the Tenancy Act and so whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 4 are joint landlords or not, the provisions of sec. 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not apply. 6. We consider that these contentions are correct. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 4 are not joint landlords. 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not apply. 6. We consider that these contentions are correct. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 4 are not joint landlords. They are both landlords of the Defendant No. 1, as has been laid down in this Court's judgment of the 13th February 1893. But they have been collecting their shares of the rent separately. They have been suing the Defendant No. 4 separately. If they even were joint landlords, they have ceased to be so. (See Panchanan Banerji v. Raj kumar Guha I. L. R. 19 Cal. 610 (1892). 7. Then in any case, the contract on which the principal Defendant is now sued is one entered into before the passing of the Tenancy Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff does not sue to have the rent of the excess land assessed. The rate at which she is entitled to rent for the excess land is specified in the Defendant's kabuliyat. All that the Plaintiff wants is to have the area of the excess land in the Defendant's possession ascertained. On this being done, the Defendants' liability to pay rent for that land at the rate specified in his kabuliyat at once arises. The suit would therefore not seem to be one under sec. 52 of the Act and hence the provisions of sec. 188 do not bar it:--Tejendro Narain Singh v. Bakai Singh I. L. R. 22 Cal. 658 (1895). 8. The Respondent's pleader contends that the Plaintiff has no right to measure. The only person, he says, who has a right to measure is the Defendant No. 4. That is not so. The dar-mokuraridar in his kabuliyat of the 28th December 1874 agreed to pay the zemindar 12 as per bigha for all excess land found on measurement to be in his possession. He did not stipulate that only the mokuraridar should measure. He meant that his landlord should have a right to measure. But he subsequently went with the mokuraridar and accepted the zemindar as his landlord in place of the mokuraridar. So the Plaintiff has the same right to measure as the mokuraridar had and moreover every landlord has such a right under sec. 90 of the Act. He meant that his landlord should have a right to measure. But he subsequently went with the mokuraridar and accepted the zemindar as his landlord in place of the mokuraridar. So the Plaintiff has the same right to measure as the mokuraridar had and moreover every landlord has such a right under sec. 90 of the Act. Then the Respondent's pleader urges that according to the mokuraridar's kabuliyat of 1872 which is referred to in the dar-mokuraridar's kabuliyat of 1874, it was the mokuraridar and not the zemindar who was to measure the land. This is so, but there can be no doubt that if the mokuraridar did not measure, the Plaintiff would be entitled to sue him for measurement. But the Defendant No. 1 has accepted the Plaintiff as his landlord in place of the mokuraridar, and hence is subject to the liability to measurement by the Plaintiff. 9. Finally, the Respondent's pleader argues that all the Plaintiff can do is to measure the mokuraridar's 1,000 bighas and that she cannot sue for a measurement of the Defendant No. 1's land only. But the mokuraridar has sub-divided his land and leased a certain part of it to the Defendant. All the parties have agreed to this arrangement. The Plaintiff would therefore appear to be entitled to measure the Defendant No. 1's land without seeking to measure the whole area, which is the subject of the mokurari lease of 1872. 10. We accordingly set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court to decide the question of limitation, and to dispose of the case accordingly. It will be observed that no other ground of appeal was urged before the Subordinate Judge. The Munsif's findings on the other issues were not objected to before the Subordinate Judge. Costs to abide the result.