Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit is for arrears of michavaram and renewal fee. The plaint schedule properties belong to the plaintiff's illom. They were demised on kanom in favour of the defendant in the year 1095. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 7 of 1114 of the District Munsiff's Court of Cranganore for renewal of the kanom with enhanced michavarom. He also claimed in the suit arrears of michavaram, and renewal fee that accrued due till the date of suit. The present defendant who was the first defendant in the case contested the suit. He claimed relief under the Cochin Agriculturists' Relief Act, Act XVII of 1114, and deposited michavaram as per the provisions of that Act. It was held in the suit that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Agriculturist's Relief Act and a decree was given for renewal of the kanom. The judgment is Ext. IV dated 28.2.1115. There was an appeal from the judgment and also a second appeal. The final decree of the High Court is Ext. B dated 6.3.1119. The High Court confirmed the decree of the trial court subject to certain slight modifications. The defendant was directed to take a renewal of the kanom within six months from the date of the High Court decree. On 15.12.1120 plaintiff filed an execution petition for directing the defendant to deposit the michavaram from the year 1116 onwards and to take a renewal of the kanom. A fresh kanom document, Ext. I, was executed by the plaintiff on 26.4.1121 and the defendant executed an Ethir deed. On 14.7.1121 plaintiff filed an execution petition for realising from the defendant michavaram from the year 1116 till the date of renewal of the kanom. This was opposed by the defendant and the execution court passed an order Ext. F on 13.10.1121 dismissing the execution petition on the ground that there was no provision in the decree for realising the michavaram that accrued due after the date of suit. It was observed in the order that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, was to seek to amend the decree of the High Court or to file a separate suit. The plaintiff then issued a notice, Ext. J. to the defendant demanding payment of michavaram that accrued from 1116 to 1121 and also the renewal fee that fell due in 1119. It was observed in the order that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, was to seek to amend the decree of the High Court or to file a separate suit. The plaintiff then issued a notice, Ext. J. to the defendant demanding payment of michavaram that accrued from 1116 to 1121 and also the renewal fee that fell due in 1119. To this the defendant sent a reply, Ext. L, on 23.10.1121 to the effect that he was prepared to pay the amounts lawfully due to the plaintiff after giving credit for the amounts deposited by him in O.S. No. 7 of 1114. But no amounts were paid by the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit on 20.3.1122. 2. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief on the basis of the kanom deed of 1095 as it was superceded by the deed of 1121 and that since the plaintiff did not claim any relief in O.S. No. 7 of 1114 in respect of the michavaram from 1116 till the execution of the renewal deed he was debarred from claiming the same in a fresh suit. It was also contended that in any case the plaintiff was not entitled to the renewal fee claimed in the suit. The trial court upheld these contentions and dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in the District Court was also dismissed. So far as the claim for renewal fee is concerned it was conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not entitled to claim it by reason of Proclamation X of 1119. 3. One of the questions that arise for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is debarred from claiming michavaram from 1116 to 1121 under the kanam deed of 1095, Ext. A, by reason of the fact that that kanam deed was superceded by the renewal deed of 1121, Ext. I. The other question is whether the suit is barred under O. II, R. 2 (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of the fact that the plaintiff omitted to claim in the prior suit michavaram from the date of that suit till the execution of the renewal deed. 4. I. The other question is whether the suit is barred under O. II, R. 2 (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of the fact that the plaintiff omitted to claim in the prior suit michavaram from the date of that suit till the execution of the renewal deed. 4. So far as the first question is concerned, I fail to see how the execution of the renewal deed in 1121 can debar the plaintiff from claiming michavaram that accrued due under the kanam deed of 1095. The execution of the renewal deed cannot affect the rights acquired and obligations incurred by the parties under the prior deed. The defendant must be deemed to have been holding the property under the kanom deed of 1095 till the date of the renewal deed of 1121, and so long as there is no provision of law prohibiting the plaintiff from enforcing whatever rights he had acquired under that deed there is no basis for holding that he will be deprived of those rights merely because a fresh kanam deed was executed in 1121. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that S. 62 of the Contract Act applied to the case. That section provides that "if the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed". I do not think that that section has any application to this case. Here there is no substitution or recision or alteration of the original contract. The defendant was holding the properties for a particular period under a particular kanam document and after that period he is holding the properties under another kanam document. The rights and obligations relating to the period during which the first document was in force cannot be affected by the execution of a fresh document relating to a different period. There is also nothing in the fresh kanam deed, Ext. I, to show that the plaintiff relinquished any of the rights he had acquired under the old kanom deed in respect of the period during which that kanom was in force. I am clearly of opinion that the fact that a renewal deed was executed in the year 1121 cannot deprive the plaintiff of his right to claim michavaram that accrued due before the execution of that deed. I am clearly of opinion that the fact that a renewal deed was executed in the year 1121 cannot deprive the plaintiff of his right to claim michavaram that accrued due before the execution of that deed. The first question has, therefore, to be answered in favour of the appellant. 5. So far as the second question is concerned, the defendant's case is that the plaintiff's suit is barred under O. II, R. 2, sub-r. (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of the fact that he omitted to claim in the prior suit future michavaram from the date of suit till the date of execution of the renewal deed. Reliance is placed on Ss. 27 to 30 of the Cochin Tenancy Act, Act XV of 1113. S. 27 reads thus: "The following amounts shall be payable by the kanom tenant at the time of renewal (a) all arrears of michavaram and puravaka dues accruing for a period not exceeding 12 years; (b) all arrears of Government or local taxes and the other dues which he was bound to pay but which were paid by the landlord irrespective of the time when they were paid". S. 28 provides: "In addition to the above amounts the kanom-tenant shall pay a renewal fee of 271/2 per cent of the kanam amount and 15 per cent of the purakadam, if any. Explanation (1) For the purposes of this section, the term, 'renewal fee' includes all dues such as Sakshiavakasam and Opputhoosi which are customarily payable on renewal. Explanation (2) The kanom amount mentioned in this section does not include the additional kanom amount levied under S. 23(e) of Act II of 1090. Nothing in this section shall make the kanam-tenant liable to pay as renewal fee anything more than 5 per cent of the kanam amount and puramkadam, if any when there is no michavaram payable under the kanam to be renewed, or it is less than 121/2 percent of the pattam fixed therein." S. 29 is to the following effect: "29(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a suit may be brought by the kanam tenant or the landlord for the execution of a renewal deed. (2) On the hearing of the suit, the Court shall determine (a) the amounts due under Ss. (2) On the hearing of the suit, the Court shall determine (a) the amounts due under Ss. 27 and 28, (b) the enhancement of michavaram, if any, to which the landlord is entitled under S. 33, (c) the reduction of michavaram, if any, to which the kanam-tenant is entitled under the same section, (d) the terms of the expiring kanam so far as they are in accordance with law; and make an order for the payment of the amounts due to the landlord under sub-clause (a) of sub-s. (2) of this section and interest thereon from their due dates at such rates as the Court may determine and the execution of a renewal deed on the terms determined under sub-clauses (d) with the variations, if any, under sub-clauses (b) and (c) within a time to be fixed by the Court. Provided that arrears of michavaram shall bear interest at the contract rate, if any, and renewal fee at the rate of six per cent from their due dates unless the landlord has refused a valid tender of the renewal fee, in which case, no interest thereon shall be payable." S. 30 runs as follows: "30. If, within the time fixed by the court or such further time as is allowed by it, the order made under the last section has not been complied with, the Court shall pass a decree for payment of the said amounts or so much as remains due with future interest, at such rate as it may think fit, or execute a renewal deed or do both, as the case may require, and make such order as to the cost of the proceedings, as it may deem fit." 6. It is argued that in the case of a suit brought either by the kanam tenant or the landlord for the execution of a renewal deed the court is bound under S. 29(2)(a) to determine the amounts due under S. 27 and that the amounts due under S. 27(a) are "all arrears of michavaram and puravaka dues accruing for a period not exceeding 12 years" before the date of renewal. S. 29(2) further provides that the Court shall make an order for payment of the amounts determined under sub-s. (2)(a) and for execution of the renewal deed within a time to be fixed by the Court. S. 29(2) further provides that the Court shall make an order for payment of the amounts determined under sub-s. (2)(a) and for execution of the renewal deed within a time to be fixed by the Court. S. 30 provides that if the amounts are not paid within that time the Court shall pass a decree for payment of the same. It is, therefore, argued that in a suit for renewal of a kanam deed the plaintiff is bound to claim all amounts payable by the tenant till the date of execution of the renewal deed and that if the plaintiff omits to claim any such amount he is debarred under O. II, R. 2(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure from claiming the same in a fresh suit. Michavaram payable by the tenant for the years 1116 to 1121 being michavaram payable within 12 years before the date of renewal of the kanam deed it is contended that the plaintiff ought to have claimed that michavaram in the prior suit. 7. A reading of Ss. 27 and 29 would go to show that in a suit for renewal of a kanom the court is bound to determine the arrears of michavaram payable by the tenant for a period not exceeding 12 years. According to the respondent's interpretation of the sections the period of 12 years should be calculated not with reference to the date of suit but with reference to the actual execution of the renewal deed. If this interpretation is accepted the position will be this: If in a suit for renewal of a kanom the plaintiff claims arrears of michavaram that accrued due for a period of 12 years before the date of suit and the suit is finally decided after the expiry of, say, six years and the renewal deed is executed after a further period of one year the plaintiff will have to lose the michavaram payable for the period of seven years between the institution of the suit and the execution of the renewal deed. I do not think that that was the intention of the legislature. S. 27 obviously contemplates the case of a renewal by the parties without the necessity of having recourse to a suit. I do not think that that was the intention of the legislature. S. 27 obviously contemplates the case of a renewal by the parties without the necessity of having recourse to a suit. S. 26 provides that it shall be obligatory on the part of the landlord to give and of the kanom tenant to accept a renewal of the tenancy at the expiry of the period of the kanom. S. 27 then provides that at the time of renewal the tenant should pay all arrears of michavaram accruing due for a period not exceeding 12 years. The section evidently does not contemplate the case of a suit instituted by the landlord for renewal of the kanam. It is true that in the case of a suit for renewal of the kanom what the court is required to determine under S. 29(2) (a) is the amount payable by the tenant under S. 27(a). I think that it is only reasonable to interpret the section as meaning that not more than 12 years' michavaram should be claimed in the suit and that the section does not deprive the plaintiff of his right to claim michavaram that accrues due from the date of suit till the date of execution of the renewal deed. A reading of Ss. 27 and 29 does not lend support to the contention that in a case in which the landlord is driven to the necessity of instituting a suit he will have to forgo the michavaram that accrues due between the institution of the suit and the execution of the renewal deed. For no fault of his the trial of the suit may be protracted and the execution of the renewal deed put off. In this particular case the suit was instituted in the year 1115 and was finally decided only in 1119. The renewal deed was executed only in 1121. I do not think that the legislature intended that in the case of a suit in which the landlord has claimed michavaram for 12 years before the date of suit, he will not be entitled to claim any michavaram for the period that intervenes between the institution of the suit and the execution of the renewal deed. According to S. 29(2) it is 'on the hearing of the suit' that the Court has to determine the amount payable by the tenant under S. 27. According to S. 29(2) it is 'on the hearing of the suit' that the Court has to determine the amount payable by the tenant under S. 27. The actual execution of the renewal deed must necessarily be after the hearing of the suit. I think that it is reasonable to interpret the section as requiring the court to determine the arrears of michavaram which the landlord could claim from the tenant on the date of the institution of the suit, such arrears being limited to 12 years prior to the date of suit. 8. There is no express provision in the Tenancy Act which requires a landlord to claim in a suit for renewal of a kanom deed michavaram that may acquire due between the institution of the suit and the execution of the renewal deed. Strictly speaking the cause of action in respect of michavaram that accrues due after the institution of the suit cannot be said to have arisen on the date of the institution of the suit. Omission to claim such michavaram cannot therefore be said to be an omission or relinquishment coming within the scope of O. II, R. (2), sub-r. (ii). It has been held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Doraiswami v. Subramania (41 Madras 188) that when in a suit for possession of property and for past and future mesne profits the court gives a decree for mesne profits up to the date of suit and says nothing about subsequent mesne profits a fresh suit to recover mesne profits from the date of the fresh suit to the date of recovery of possession of the property was not barred. The same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Muhammad Ishau Khan v. Muhammad Rustom Ali Khan (40 Allahabad 292), by the Bombay High Court in Laxmibai v. Jagannath Ravji (56 Bombay 292) and in Gangadhar Gopalrao v. Sripad Annarao (174 IC 773 FB) and by the Calcutta High Court in Bipulbihari Chakravarthi v. Nikhilchandra Chakravarthi (57 Cal. 381) and in Kalidas Rakshit v. Keshablal Majumdar (53 Cal. 1040). In Ram Karan Singh v. Nakcheed Ahiri (53 All. 381) and in Kalidas Rakshit v. Keshablal Majumdar (53 Cal. 1040). In Ram Karan Singh v. Nakcheed Ahiri (53 All. 951) a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that when in a suit for possession no claim was made for future mesne profits a subsequent suit for mesne profits from the date of the first suit till the date of delivery of possession was not barred under O. II, R.2(ii). This decision was followed in Ganga Ram v. Mutesra (54 All. 65). To the same effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rama Kallappa v. Saidappa Sidrama (59 Bombay 454) and of the Oudh Chief Court in Wajid Khan v. Abdul Majid Khan (128 IC 1930). The principle laid down in those cases must apply to this case also. I am, therefore, of opinion that the suit is not barred under O. II, R. 2(ii). I hold that the suit for arrears of michavaram claimed in the plaint is maintainable. As already stated, the appellant does not press his claim as regards the renewal fee. 9. In the result, I allow this Second Appeal and setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below give the plaintiff a decree for the arrears of michavaram claimed in the plaint with interest at 6 per cent per annum. The claim for renewal fees is disallowed. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs in all the courts. Allowed.