1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit and the only question in dispute is the amount of rent payable. The plaintiff relies on a decision in a case under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant relies on a decision in a suit for rent for the years previous to those for which rent is claimed in the present suit.
2. The appellant has taken back from the file of the lower Court the judgment delivered in Section 105 case, Consequently I have before me only the statement by the lower Court of the purport of that judgment. From that it appears that in that case the only point which the Revenue Officer had to consider was what additional rent was to be allowed for the exce(sic)s area. If that was the only point decided it is of no help to the appellant that the rant of the original area was recorded at the conclusion of that case at the same amount as it had been recorded in the kh tian. The lower Courts have held that the presumption arising from the entry in the khatian was rebutted by the decree in the previous rent suit in which the rate of rent was held to be that admitted by the defendant. It is contended that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the decree operated as res judicata. It may not be res judicata in the tense that it finally decided the rate of rent between the parties. But it is ret judicata that for the years for which that suit was brought the rent was the amount then found. That decision is sufficient to support the finding that the presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights has been rebutted.
3. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.