JUDGMENT 1. The two grounds of second appeal that have been argued before us refer to the rate of interest and the question of setoff in regard to a sura of Rs. 75-6-9 p. which was pleaded by the tenant Defendants as against the Plaintiffs' claim for rent. The Munsif decided both the points in favour of the Plaintiff-landlords and allowed interest at the rate of Rs. 371 per cent, which was the original stipulation in the kabuliyat and he disallowed the Defendants' plea of set-off. 2. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed the Munsif's decision on both these points and from that judgment the Plaintiffs have tiled this appeal. 3. The set-off claimed was the amount of costs decreed in a previous rent-suit brought by the benamdars of the present Plaintiffs against the same Defendants in respect of the same holding for a period partly covered by the period to which the present suit refers. The present Plaintiffs were made pro forma Defendants in that suit, and on the tenants Defendants pleading that the Plaintiffs in that suit were the benamdars of the present Plaintiffs and had no right to maintain the suit, that suit was withdrawn and costs amounting to Rs. 75-6-9 p. were allowed to the Defendants as against the benamdars Plaintiffs. 4. It was open to the Defendants in that suit to ask for a decree as regards costs against the pro forma Defendants who were the real landlords. This was not done; but the tenants Defendants claim a set-off for that amount against the Plaintiffs who are the landlords on the ground that the costs are equitably payable by the Plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court has allowed the set-off relying on the authority of the cases of Gopi Nath v. Bhagwat ILR 10 Cal. 697 (1884) and G. Chisholm v. Gopal Chandra ILR 16 Cal. 711 (1889). 5. We think, however, that neither of these cases supports the finding of the lower Court or goes to establish the liability of the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the former suit. In the first case cited above, all that was held was that a judgment which binds the benamdar also binds the rent owner: and the facts of the second case were entirely different from those before us. Nor is the case covered, in our opinion, by the wording of sec. In the first case cited above, all that was held was that a judgment which binds the benamdar also binds the rent owner: and the facts of the second case were entirely different from those before us. Nor is the case covered, in our opinion, by the wording of sec. 111, C.P.C., because the principle of that section is mutuality and the decree which is sought to be set off in the present case was a decree not against the present Plaintiffs but against third parties who were benamdars of the Plaintiffs. No authority has been shown to us in support of the contention that this amount is legally recoverable from the Plaintiffs, and we do not think that the two transactions were the same within the meaning of sec. 111. The ruling cited by learned vakil for the Respondent, Bharat prosad v. Rameshwar ILR 30 Cal. 1066 (1903), is also not applicable because in that case the previous decree was against the Plaintiff himself. We cannot go behind the former decree which was against third parties, and we are unable to say in the present case that that amount is legally recoverable from the Plaintiffs. 6. As regards the rate of interest the kabuliyat in question is over 30 years old being a registered document executed in 1866. Its genuineness was not denied, in the written statement, and the only stipulation in it to which exception was taken was the rate of interest. The grounds which the learned Subordinate Judge has assigned for holding that this kabuliyat is not binding on the tenants Defendants appear to us to be wholly untenable-; those grounds were not taken in the written statement. The Defendants acquired this holding by private purchase; their title rests upon the kabuliyat, and the learned vakil for the Respondent, on the matter being put to him, admits that he cannot question the genuineness of the kabuliyat. If any authority were required in support of the binding effect of this kabuliyat, it would be enough to refer to the Full Bench case of Lal Gopal Dutt v. Monmotha Lal Dull 9 C.W.N. 175 (1904). If any authority were required in support of the binding effect of this kabuliyat, it would be enough to refer to the Full Bench case of Lal Gopal Dutt v. Monmotha Lal Dull 9 C.W.N. 175 (1904). We, therefore, are of opinion that the kabuliyat, which is an ancient document, and was registered, and the execution of which has also been proved, is binding on the tenants Defendants, and as it was a contract made long before the introduction of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the rate of interest stipulated therein must be given effect to as between the parties. For these reasons, we set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif. The appeal is decreed with costs.