Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 281-A khasra situated in mahal hhaa patti Wahid Ali of the village Rajapur. The plaintiff is a co-sparer in patti Ghairkhwahindgan' of mahal khas of the said village. His allegation was that the defendant Gaj Kumar Chand had purchased a part of the share of Mubarak Ali but had no right to the plot in dispute.
2. It appears that a previous suit had been filed by Gaj Kumar Chand against Pitai for arrears of rent in respect, of the plot in question to which Salamat Ali was also impleaded as a co-defendant. That suit was resisted both by Pitai and Salamat Ali, Pitai pleaded that he had held the land at one time as a non-occupancy tenant on behalf of Salamat Ali and that he had surrendered the holding afterwards and was not therefore liable for rent to any party. Salamat Ali set up his own title to the land. That suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance but decreed by the Collector on appeal against Pifcai alone. His finding was that Pitai was really in possession on behalf of Gaj Kumar Chand. There was a further appeal by Salamat Ali to the District Judge, who came to the conclusion that Salamat Ali was the owner of the plot in question, and that Pitai was not in possession and could not be made liable for the payment of rent.
3. The above decision was held by the trial Court in the present suit to operate as res judicata. The lower Appellate Court has, however, found otherwise and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff in regard to that plot. In a suit filed by a person against another who denies that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between him and the plaintiff, it is open to Court to implead the parson to whom the payment of rent is alleged to have been made by the defendant. But if any question of title is decided between the plaintiff and a third party so added, that decision does not operate as conclusive, and a suit by the defeated party to establish his title can lie in the Civil Court. Section 198, Clause (2) of the Agra Tenancy Act provides for the determination of the same question in a separate suit. No relief was claimed in the previous suit against Salamat Ali. The plaintiff had claimed arrears of rent from Pitai. Pitai had denied that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between him and the plaintiff. He had further denied that he had been in possession. The Revenue Court proceeded to enquire whether he was in possession and on whose behalf and to whom he was liable to pay the rent of the plot in question. The trial Court found against Gaj Kumar Chand. The Collector on appeal gave him a decree for arrears of rent against Pitai alone. On a further appeal to the District Judge that decree was reversed. The decision of the question of title in those circumstances between Gaj Kumar Chand and Salamat Ali cannot be treated as final or res judiaata in view of Section 198, Clause (2) of the Tenancy Act. Section 199 has no application because Pitai did not claim proprietary title in himself and for the same reason the decision in Shahzade Singh v. Muhammad Ahmad Ali Khan (1909) 32 All. 8 is also inapplicable. The lower Appellate Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove chat he was the owner of the disputed plot. It further finds that the plot in dispute was in patti Wahid Ali in which the plaintiff Salamat Ali wag not a co-sharer. The decision in the previous suit can therefore be disregarded. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.