1. In Second Appeal No. 906.--The facts of the case, so far as the question raised with reference to the claim for the rent for falsi 1299 is concerned, appear to be these: Before the present suit was instituted the appellant (plaintiff) had distrained for that rent under the Eent Recovery Act VIII of 1865. Thereupon the respondents (defendants) filed a summary suit before the Collector under the provisions of that Act to set aside the distraint. The distraint was set aside on the ground, it would seem, that the appellant had not tendered a proper patta as required by Section 7 of the Act. This finding of the Collector has now been held, by the District Munsif as well as by the District Judge, to conclude the appellant from showing, in the present suit, that there was such a tender. The question is whether this decision is right.
2. We think it is not. Ragava v. Rajagopal I.L.R. 9 Mad. 39 relied upon on behalf of the respondents, no doubt supports the view taken by the lower Courts. But that case is in conflict with the earlier decision in Rama v. Tirtasami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 61 and was dissented from in Gangaraju v. Kondireddiswami I.L.R. 17 Mad. 106 by Mcttusami Ayyar and BEST, JJ., who followed the case of Rmaa v. Tirtasami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 61. The same learned Judges held in Oliver v. Markandayyan Second Appeals Nos. 750 to 754 of 1892 unreported also, that decisions of Revenue Courts do not operate as res judicata when the same question arises between the parties in a Civil Court. Moreover, inasmuch as the Revenue Courts cannot entertain suits for rent like the present, those tribunals are not, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Courts of competent jurisdiction entitled to adjudicate so as to bar the Civil Courts from trying, in such suits, a question already decided by the former tribunals. This being so, the fact that Section 13 is not exhaustive on the subject with which it deals cannot render applicable here the reasoning adopted by BURKITT, J., in Bar Charan Singh v. Har Shanker Singh I.L.R. 16 All. 464 which would be legitimate only if the case is one falling outside the terms of the Section. For, the present case is not one of the latter description, but is covered by the express language of the Section; the words therein 'competent to try such subsequent suit' absolutely precluding the decision of the Revenue Courts from operating as res judicata. To hold otherwise, under these circumstances, would clearly be in direct contravention of the legislative provision and would not be an application of the general principle of res judicata to a case not provided for by statute.
3. As to the claim for the rents for faslis 1296, 1297 and 1298 held to have been barred by limitation on the authority of the decision in Sriramulu v. Sobhanadri Appa Rau I.L.R. 19 Mad. 21 which overruled that of MTJTTUSAMI AYYAR, J., in Sobhanadri Appa Rau v. Chalamanna I.L.R. 17 Mad. 225 the appellant, we think, is entitled to prove, as he was permitted to do in Ramakrishnamma v. Rangayya Appa Rau Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 29 to 117 and 198 to 205 of 1895 unreported that his right was acknowledged or that the bar of limitation was in some other way removed.
4. We must therefore call for fresh findings on the following issues on the evidence on record as well as upon any other evidence which the parties might adduce at the enquiry:
1. Is the plaintiff's suit for faslis previous to 1299 time-barred?
2. Whether proper pattas were tendered in the suit faslis?
5. The findings are to be submitted within one month of the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the findings have been posted up in this Court.
6. In Second Appeal Nos. 907 to 911, 989 and 990 of 1895.--For the reasons given in our judgment in Second Appeal No. 906 of 1895, we call for a finding on the issue whether the claim is barred by limitation.
7. Fresh evidence may be taken. The finding is to be submitted within one month after the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court.
8. [In compliance with the above order, the District Judge returned his finding in the second issue which was as follows:
9. I find on this issue that pattas were tendered in faslis 1299 aud 1300, but that the pattas were not proper or such as the defendant was bound to accept, in that they imposed improper conditions as to buildings and raised the rent without the Collector's sanction.
10. The District Judge reported that the second appeals with reference to which the first issue was framed had been compromised. In the result, the second appeal having been posted again for disposal, some of them were withdrawn, and the High Court delivered judgment dismissing the rest.]