JUDGMENT 1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one brought by certain co-sharer proprietors to recover malikana. The Subordinate Judge has held that the suit is barred by limitation, because he finds, as a matter of fact, that the Plaintiffs had never been in the habit of receiving any malikana from the year 1845 up to date. This would, no doubt, not bar the suit under the present law, because, under Art. 132 of the present Limitation Act the right to receive malikana is a recurring right and the right to sue accrued from the time when the money paid was due. But, as pointed out by the Subordinate Judge, the law under Act XIV of 1859 was different. Under the provisions of that Act malikana was treated as an interest in land, and the right to sue accrued from the time of the accrual of the cause of action. Therefore the Subordinate Judge points out that if the right to receive malikana was not enforced for 12 years, it became extinguished. 2. The Plaintiffs appeal and impugn the decision of the Subordinate Judge. They contend that the Subordinate Judge is not right in holding that non-receipt of malikana extinguished the right to receive it under the former law. Further, the pleader urges that there is a passage in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in which he says a certain list shows that the predecessor of some of the Defendants filed 14 receipts, showing payment of malikana to other maliks of Mouzah Dhamoul from 1252 and 1276. The pleader for the Appellant contends that this saves the Plaintiffs' right to recover malikana from being barred by limitation. 3. There is in our opinion no force in either of these pleas. It is quite clear that under the former law the right to receive malikana is treated as an interest in land and the claim is barred, if not made within 12 years after the last receipt by the proprietor. This is laid down in the case of Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirdoy Narain I. L. R. 5 Cal. It is quite clear that under the former law the right to receive malikana is treated as an interest in land and the claim is barred, if not made within 12 years after the last receipt by the proprietor. This is laid down in the case of Hurmuzi Begum v. Hirdoy Narain I. L. R. 5 Cal. 921 (1880), and there is another case which we may refer to, namely, that of Mussummat Beebee Chammun v. Mussummat Om Koolsoom 13 W. R. 465 (1865), in which it is said that the rule of law laid down by the Privy Council that a person entitled to an interest in immoveable property, loses not only all remedy, but his title, by being out of possession for more than 12 years, was held to apply to the case of a recusant proprietor claiming malikana. 4. With regard to the second point it is sufficient to say that we do not think that payment of malikana to other maliks of the mouzah can save the Plaintiffs' right to recover malikana. The learned pleader for the Plaintiffs, Appellants, contends that the Plaintiffs and their co-sharers jointly enjoyed the malikana in previous years. This has not been found by the Subordinate Judge. It appears to us that the Subordinate Judge could not have meant to find that, otherwise he would not have come to the conclusion at which he has arrived. Furthermore he could not have come to any other conclusion, because, In paragraph 6 of the plaint the Plaintiffs set forth that their ancestors "all along received separately from the Defendants, who were in possession, as well as their ancestors the proportionate share of malikana in respect of a 1 anna 13 drums share at the rate of 10 per cent." There is, therefore, in our opinion no ground for disturbing the decision of the lower Appellate Court; and we dismiss this appeal with costs.