Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. This appeal must succeed. It is a settled proposition of law that the rule of res judicata so far as relates to the trial of an issue refers
not to the date of the commencement of the litigation but to the date when the Judge is called upon to decide the issue.
2. It is equally settled that the competence of a Court for the purpose of Section 11 of the Civil P.C. is 'to be determined irrespective of any provision as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court '. Vide Explanations 1 and 2 of Section 11 of the Civil P.C. and the case of Beni Madho v. Indar Sahai  32 All. 67. It remains only to apply this proposition of law to the facts of this present appeal.
3. The suit out of which this present appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for arrears of rent for three years, on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the ex-proprietary tenants of the plots in respect of which the rent was due from the defendants, and that the defendants were in possession of these plots as sub-tenants on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defence to the suit was that the defendants were not in possession as sub-tenants on behalf of the plaintiffs, but being zemindars of the plots in dispute were in possession as zemindars, and the plots in dispute constituted their khudkasht land. The learned Assistant Collector who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs' claim and against the decree an appeal was filed by the defendants in the Court of the District Judge.
4. In the meantime the defendants, in order to strengthen their position, applied for correction of the entries in the revenue papers. This case was also tried by the very Assistant Collector who had tried the suit for arrears of rent and he, holding that the defendants were rightly entered as sub-tenants in the revenue papers, rejected the application for correction of the papers. On appeal, by the defendants of the present suit, the learned Collector reversed the decision of the Assistant Collector in the correction of jamabandi case.
5. After the decision by the Collector, the appeal filed in the Court of the District Judge against the decree in the suit for arrears of rent case, came up for hearing and the judgment of the learned Collector was produced before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge observed in the course of his judgment that he was not bound by the judgment of the Collector in the correction of jamabandi case, but because of certain reasons that he assigned in the course of his judgment, he reversed the decree of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Against that decree of the District Judge the present second appeal was filed in this Court and has to-day been put up for hearing.
6. In the meantime the decision of the Collector has been reversed by the learned Commissioner and the Commissioner's decision has been upheld by the Board of Revenue. In short, in the correction of jamabandi case it has been finally decided by the revenue Court that the defendants are the sub-tenants of the plaintiffs-appellants. Armed with this decision of the revenue Court the plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act against the defendants-respondents. That suit has also been decreed by the learned Commissioner The decisions of the learned Commissioner referred to above were filed in this Court on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants and these documents, by an order dated the 4th June 1926, have been admitted in evidence by a learned Judge of this Court under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil P.C. A reference to the judgment of the Commissioner in the ejectment suit will show that the order of the learned Commissioner in the correction of jamabandi case has been upheld by the Board of Revenue.
7. The suit for arrears of rent, the correction of jamabandi case and the suit for ejectment under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act were all triable by an Assistant Collector of the first Class. In short, the same Court was competent to try all the three suits that have been litigated between the parties. Therefore, the decision of a particular issue in any one of those three suits would operate as res judicata in any one of the three suits that falls to be subsequently decided and in which the same issues arise for determination. The common issue that called for a determination in all the three suits referred to above was whether or not the defendants are the sub-tenants of the plaintiffs. The decision of the revenue Court in the ejectment and in the correction of jamabandi cases which have been decided prior to this appeal being that the defendants are in the position of sub-tenants has the effect of res judicata in the present appeal.
8. I need hardly point out that the decision of the revenue Court in a matter within the exclusive cognizance of that Court is binding on the civil Courts,: vide Motto v. Ramlal  43 All. 191. That question does not arise in the present case, inasmuch as all the three suits referred to above were suits instituted in the revenue Court. It would be anomalous to hold that the decision of the revenue Court in two of the three suits cannot have the effect of res judicata that was filed in that very Court and decided by that Court.
9. For the reasons given above I am of opinion that the decree of the trial Court was correct and ought to be restored. The result is that the appeal is allowed; the decree of the Court below is set aside and the decree of the Assistant Collector is restored with costs throughout. Costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.