Das, J.The only question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to that portion of the rent which accrued due in the life time of the Raja of Jheria. The late Raja died on the 16th March, 1916, leaving three widows and the present plaintiff who succeeded to the estate by right of survivorship. It has bean held by the Judicial Committee that the produce of an impartible estate does not necessarily belong to and form an accretion to the original property. In this case we have no evidence that the late Raja treated the produce of the estate as an accretion to the estate. That being so prima facie the plaintiff is not entitled to rent which accrued due in the life-time of the late Raja. It was, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that unrealised rents cannot be regarded as a self-acquisition as they still adhere to the estate. I am unable to accede to this argument. Rent which has become due is produce of the impartible estate whether that produce has actually come into the hands of the owner or not. I can make no distinction between realised rent and unrealised rent in this respect. It was next contended that the defendants paid some of the arrears and thereby acknowledged the plaintiffs title to recover these arrears. There is no substance in this argument. The rent receipt Ex. A, no doubt, shows that certain rent paid by the defendants was appropriated by the plaintiff but this does not establish that the defendants acknowledged the right of the plaintiff to collect the arrears. Even if they did, that cannot take away their right to contend now upon the decision of the Judicial Committee that the plaintiff is not entitled to the arrears which accrued due in the lifetime of the late Raja.

2. Lastly it is contended that assuming that the plaintiff is not entitled to rent up to and including the Asswin kist 1322, be is, in any event, entitled to the Ghait kist 1322. As I have said, the late Raja died on the 16th March, 1916, which corresponds to the 24th Balgoon, 1322. The rent is payable in two kists, Asswin and Chait. It is obvious that the plaintiff is not entitled to the Asswin kist 1322. Mr. Naresh Chandra Sinhas contention is that rent does not accrue from day to day and that the Chait kist accrued due in Chait when the plaintiff succeeded to the estate-He accordingly argues that the plaintiff is entitled to the Chait kist of 1322. In my opinion this argument is not correct. u/s 36 of the Transfer of Property Act, rent upon the transfer of the interest of the person entitled to receive rent, is deemed as between the transferor and transferee to accrue from day to day and to be apportionable accordingly but to be payable on the days appointed for the payment thereof. In other words, the Chait kist though payable in Chait must be deemed to accrue due from day to day and to be apportionable accordingly.

3. The result is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any rent up to and including the 21th Falgoon, 1322. The decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge must be modified accordingly. The appellant is entitled to the general costs of the appeal: but not to a hearing fee.

Ross, J.

4. I agree.