1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they were proprietors of certain plots of land which are specified in a list at the end of the plaint. They also asked to have a certain decree for rent granted by the Revenue Court set aside. It appears that as Car back as the year 1872, the defendants or their representatives were recorded as proprietors and the plaintiffs in the present suit were recorded as cultivators in respect of the holdings the subject-matter of the present suit. In the year 1902, the plaintiffs made an application to correct the entry in the revenue papers. This application was refused. In 1903, a similar application was made with a like result. The defendants in the present suit then applied in the Revenue Court to have the rent payable by the plaintiffs enhanced and the application was allowed in March 1904. In the year 1906, the defendants sued the plaintiffs in the Revenue Court for arrears of enhanced rent. Only one of the plaintiffs in this suit, namely Khaliq Singh, appeared, but a decree was given for enhanced rent and this is the decree which it is now sought to set aside. The plaintiffs by their present suit seek to go behind all the proceedings in the Revenue Court and to have it declared that they are proprietors of the holding of which they have been recorded as cultivatory tenants ever since the year 1872. If the law permitted this to be done it would be very unfortunate. It would mean that the time of the Revenue Court in considering the question of the enhancement of rent, and also in deciding the issues between the parties in the suit of arrears of rent, would have been completely wasted, and it would tend to bring the Civil and Revenue Courts into conflict. It does not appear that the plaintiffs ever set up their proprietary title until they instituted the present suit. When they were sued for arrears of rent it is quite clear that they did not plead the proprietary title. We have had the judgment of the Revenue Court in that case read to us. It has been ingeniously argued by Mr. Surendra Nath Sen that the Revenue Court has only jurisdiction to decide a question of proprietary right or to order the defendant to bring a suit in a Civil Court under the provisions of Section 199 of the Tenancy Act, in a case in which the defendant has expressly pleaded his proprietary title, and he argues that inasmuch as the plaintiffs in the present case did not plead proprietary title when sued in the Revenue Court the question never was capable of being decided by a Revenue Court. We think that such construction of the Tenancy Act is quite contrary to the entire policy of the law. We think that when the plaintiffs were sued in the Revenue Court they were bound under the provisions of Section 199 of the Tenancy Act read with Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. XIV of 1882) to put forward as a defence to the suit their plea of proprietary title, and that having failed to do so the matter of res judicata, and it is not open to them to raise the question afresh in the present suit. We find that a similar view was taken by a Judge of this Court in the case of Behari v. Sheobalak (1907) 27 A.W.N. 189. The learned Judge in that case points out the alteration that has been made in the law by Section 199 of the Tenancy Act and distinguishes cases arising since the passing of that Act from cases coming under the provisions of Act No. XII of 1881. We allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below, and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts including in this Court fees on the higher scale.