Parmeshwar Prasad Singh and Others vs Narsingh Rai

Ross, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the District Utdge of Muzaffarpur affirming a decision of the Munsif of Hajipur by which he dismissed the plaintiff''s suit for a declaration that the holding of the defendant is a bhaoli? holding and not a holding at a cash rent. The suit was not tried but was dismissed on the preliminary ground that it was barred by the rule of res judicata. The only question in this appeal is whether the Courts below were right in applying this rule to the facts of this case.

It appears both from the judgment of the Munsif in the present suit and from the judgment in the previous litigation that the Record of Rights shows that this is a bhaoli holding. In Rent Suit No. 1508 of 1916 the plaintiffs sued the defendant for bhaoli rent for 1320 to 1323. The second issue in that suit is whether the land is bhaoli or nakdi. A compromise decree in a suit between the lessee of the village and the defendant was produced in evidence. The Munsif, rightly stating the question to be whether the entry in the Record of Rights had been rebutted by this decree, held that it had not. The District Judge came to the opposite decision and dismissed the suit for produce rent. The Courts below have held that that decision was conclusive in the present litigation.

The present case is on all fours with Kali Roy v. Partap Narain 5 C.L.J. 92. There the plaintiff relied on the Record of Rights which showed bhaoli rent. The defendant relied on a previous rent-decree at a cash rental. It was held that the decision in a previous rent suit as to the amount of rent payable does not operate as res judicata in a suit for the rent of the subsequent years, although it may give rise to a presumption u/s 51 of the Bengal Tenancy Act that the rents for subsequent years remained the same. This decision answers the argument of the learned Vakil for the respondent to the effect that a decision that rent is cash rent must be res judicata, because a cash rent cannot change to a produce rent The rule is that while the decree finally decides the rent payable for the years in suit it is merely presumptive evidence of the rent of future years and the presumption may be rebutted. The cases referred to by the learned Vakil for the respondent, Maharaja Radha Kishore Manikya Bahadur v. Umed Ali 12 C.W.N. 904 and Upendra Kumar Chakravarti v. Sham Lal Mondol 11 C.W.N. 1100 : 6 C.L.J. 715 : 34 C. 1020, have no bearing on the present question. In the decision of this Court relied on by the District Judge the principal question was the question of area. I hold, therefore, that the decisions of the Courts below are wrong and I decree this appeal with costs and set aside the decrees of the District Judge and the Munsif and remand the case to the Munsif for trial.