1. The facts of the ease are briefly these. One Attar Singh was the proprietor of certain lands, sir and non-sir. He made a mortgage in favour of the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The appellant asked for rent being assessed over the sir lands which became, by the fact of mortgage, the expropriator tenancy of Attar Singh. It appears that Attar Singh and the appellant agreed as to the amount of rent to be paid by the former. An order was passed by the Court under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act. It examined the patwari, heard the sulahnama and ordered that for 10 bighas 6 biswas land, for which the rent is now claimed, a sum of Rs. 101-7-0 be fixed as the rent. It fixed another sum with respect to certain other lands in which Attar Singh had no interest as an ex' proprietary tenant. Attar Singh is dead. The appellant instituted the suit against his two brothers who are the recorded tenants, on the death of Attar Singh and al3o made Attar Singh's daughter Mussammat Gaindi a party. In the Courts below it was recognized that Mussammat Gaindi had no interest and she never contested the suit. In this Court no notice was served on Mussammat Gaindi and so far, therefore, as she is concerned, this appeal must fail.
2. The Court of first instance found that-the defendants applied for abatement, of rent and the rent was reduced to the sum' of Rs. 37 and odd. This order, however, waste take effect from 1329 F. and did not affect the present suit which was for the years 1325-1327 F. The learned Assistant Collector held that the compromise on which the order of the Assistant Collector fixing the rent was passed was an unfair compromise and had been obtained by exercise of undue influence. He decreed' the suit with respect to a very small sum.
3. Indeed, he accepted a certain amount as-the rent for the land which had been recorded before the rent was fixed.
4. On appeal the learned District Judge was practically of the same opinion as the learned Assistant Collector. He held that-it was necessary to protect the ex-proprietary tenants against their own folly.
5. In appeal, which is unfortunately not opposed in this Court, it has been argued that the order fixing the rent, so long as-it stands, is binding on the parties and their successors and it did not lie within the province of the Court below to question the validity of it.
6. It has not been alleged that the order fixing the rent was obtained by means of fraud or that the Court which fixed the amount was of incompetent jurisdiction. This being so, the order which was passed between the parties is binding, even if it be the case that it merely adopted an agreement between the landlord and the exproprietary tenant. We have, however, the fact that the patwari was also examined in the case though it is not clear on what point. This view was taken by this Court in the case of Har Parsad v. Khazen (1920) 18 A.L.J. 684.
7. I accordingly hold that the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are bound to pay according to the rent fixed by the Assistant Collector on the 8th December, 1917.
8. The result is that the appeal is allowed, decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit stands decreed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alona with costs throughout which, however, will not include the costs in this Court because the appeal was uncontested. The suit will stand dismissed against respondent Mt. Gaindi