Pigot and Gordon, JJ.
1. In this appeal the appellants challenge the decision of the Lower Appellate Court, treating as binding upon the plaintiffs the finding in a former suit as to the amount of rent payable for the properties in respect of the rent of which the suit is brought. The present suit is brought for the rent of the year 1296 and a rent decree for the year 1295, and the proceedings in the suit in which that is the decree have been put in, and the Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff is bound by that decree and is not entitled to recover more than the amount recovered under that decree. It is contended in appeal that the plaintiff is not bound by that decree under the principle of res judicata. We think he is to this extent: we think that he is bound by the rule of res judicata upon the question of what was the rent for the year 1295, and we think so after having had read to us the portion of the judgment in the former suit relating to the question then decided. We have been referred to the cases Punnoo Singh v. Nirghin Singh I.L.R. 7 Cal. 298 and Jeo Lal Singh v. Surfun 11 C.L.R. 483 and it is urged upon us that where a plaintiff claims as rent a particular sum, and it is held by the Court that he has failed to establish that to be due, and the Court upon an admission by the defendant gives a decree for a lesser sum, that cannot operate under the rule of res judicata as determining conclusively the due amount payable for the year, the rent of which is sued for. That proposition is too large. It may or may not be res judicata according to what the Court actually finds. It may be discovered from an examination of the proceedings in the suit that all that was determined in it was that the plaintiff should recover from the defendants, as rent for the period in question, the sum admitted by them to be due, or it may be that what was decided was thai the sum admitted by the defendants was the proper amount of rent payable for the land in suit, for the year or years in question.
2. That may be ascertained from a common sense view of the judgment by seeing what was the issue decided: perhaps it would not be too much to hazard the opinion that, as a general rule in these cases, the amount found due, upon the failure of the plaintiff to prove his alleged jama, upon the admission of the defendants, was probably found due as the proper amount of jama payable. In the present case we so construe the decision in the former case, and we think that the decision of the Lower Appellate Court was right, and that the plaintiff was bound by the former decision as to what was the rent for 1295. That being so, and it being admitted, as we understand the learned pleader, that no attempt was made to establish a subsequent agreement for a different rent, Section 51 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies, and the present rent for 1296 must be presumed to be the same as that for 1295. We therefore reject the appeals in this case.