1. This is an appeal against a decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated the 12th July 1915, affirming a decision of the Munsif of Ranaghat. The plaintiffs brought a suit to recover possession from the defendants of 11/2 bighas of land, alleging that they and the pro forma defendants were the landlords and that as in a previous rent suit the defendants had denied the fact that the plaintiffs were the landlords, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiffs were the landlords. Against that Dr. Dwarka Nath Mitra says that in the former suit in which the plaintiffs sued for rent the defendants raised one and only one issue, namely, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was found in that case that the plaintiffs had failed to prove such relationship. It is said, therefore, that it was not competent to the learned Subordinate Judge to find in this case that the plaintiffs were the landlords, because he was precluded from doing so by the estoppel created by the decision in the former rent suit. That statement seems to be well founded. The present case is on all fours with the decision of this Court in the case of Ekabar Sheikh v. Hara Bewa 8 Ind. Cas. 660 : 13 C.L.J.J (sic) : 15 C.W.N. 335. We follow that decision which is binding on us, and reverse the decision of the lower Courts and direct that the plaintiffs' suit be dismissed with costs in all the Courts.