Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J.
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shamsnl Huda in a suit for ejectment of an under-raiyat under Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. It appears that in a previous litigation between the parties with regard to the disputed1 land, the plaintiff sought to eject the defendant as a trespasser In the course of that suit', terms of compromise were arranged between them. These terms in substance were that the defendant should hold as a tenant under the plaintiff on payment of rent at the rate of two annas and that the defendant would not be liable to be ejected from his under-raiyati holding. The plaintiff now argues that he is not bound by this solemn agreement which was incorporated in the decree in the previous suit. His contention is based on the allegation that this was in reality the grant of a perpetual lease and should have been embodied in a registered document. We are of opinion that there i9 no foundation for this contention. The terms of the agreement between the parties were set out in the decree; and, on the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapore Zemindari Co. Ltd. 53 Ind. Cas. 534 : 24 C.W.N. 177 : 37 M.L.J. 525 : 17 A.L.J. 1117 : (1920) M.W.N. 66 : 27 M.L.T. 42 : 11 L..W. 301 : 31 C.L.J. 298 : 22 Bom. L.R. 488 47 C. 485 : 46 I.A. 240 (P.C.), we must hold that these terms are admissible in evidence and bind both parties equally. Under those terms there cannot be the slightest doubt that the defendant can successfully resist the claim for ejectment.
3. The result is that this appeal is allowed, the decree of Mr. Justice Shamsul Huda made in affirmance of that of the District Judge sat aside, and that of the Court of first instance restored with costs in all Courts.
4. I agree.