1. The only point raised in this case is that the present claim is bared by the principle of res judicata. The plaintiffs claimed to be the doblidars of the plot in dispute. Mr. Aziz admits that 'doblidar' is the local name for a rent-free grantee. Previous to this suit the plaintiffs had brought a suit in the Revenue Court against the defendant alleging that the defendant was their tenant. The Revenue Court held that the defendant was not the plaintiffs' tenant at all and directed that the plaintiffs should sue the defendant for possession in the Civil Court. The only point on which the judgment of the Revenue Court is conclusive is that no relation of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. That judgment did not decide as to whether or not the plaintiffs were the rent free grantees.
2. In the present civil suit the plaintiffs in no way tried to get round the finding of the Revenue Court that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. They claimed to be rent-free grantees and not tenants, nor do they allege that the defendant is their tenant. I do not, therefore, see how any question of res judicata arises in this case. I may note that, under Section 4, Sub-clause (5), of the Agra Tenancy Act, a tenant does not include a rent-free grantee. It follows, therefore, that if a rent-free grantee has been wrongfully ejected by the zemindar no suit under Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act can be brought in the Revenue Court. The only remedy open to a rent-free grantee is, therefore, to sue in a Civil Court. I am accordingly of opinion that this appeal is without any force. I dismiss it under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.