Ramaswami, J.

1. The only question argued in this appeal is whether the decree obtained by defendant 8 in Rent Suit no. 809 of 1940-41 operated as a rent decree or as a money decree.

2. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. J.M. Ghosh properly conceded that if it be held that the decree had the force of a money decree this appeal must fail. If not, it is manifest that this appeal should succeed.

3. The appeal had been remanded by the High Court to the learned Subordinate Judge for rehearing the parties and

"after excluding Ex. 8, a judgment, from evidence send up a clear finding to this Court by making clear references to and discussing the relevant evidence which justifies him in holding that the decree in question was a rent decree or a money decree."

The learned Subordinate Judge has now examined the evidence afresh and submitted a finding that the decree in question operated as a money decree and not as a rent decree. Learned counsel for the appellant impeached this finding on the ground that there was no evidence in support thereof. In my opinion, this argument is not tenable. It it true that the judgment or the decree of the rent suit was not exhibited on behalf of the part