JUDGMENT 1. There is nothing in the policy of the law or custom of the country to prevent the creation of an intermediate tenure between a putndar and a dur-puinidar. It is immaterial what name is given to it. The plaintiff sued in the character of an intermediate tenure-holder and he was merely an assignee of the rent. We do not see why a suit should not lie at his instance to recover rent from the dur-putnidar. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs, one gold mohur.