The issue of the status of a tenant is a necessary issue in a rent suit and the decision in a rent suit on the issue of the status of a tenant would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit based on the same title.

Misra, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of 4.53 acres of land in village Mohammadpur Abgila, Touzi No. 2928, out of a total area of 7.20 acres of land in bhata No. 2 described in schedules 1 to 3 of the plaint. The suit land, admittedly, was the bakasht land of the sixteen annas proprietor of this touzi which belonged originally to one Sheo-gulam Singh. Sheogulam had five sons, Dal-singhar Singh, Ramkhelawan Singh, Prahlad Singh, Parasnath Singh and Narasingh Singh. After the death of Sheogulam, the five sons named above held three annas four dams share each in the bakasht land mentioned above. It appears that the share of Dalsinghar ultimately came to be held by one Jugan Singh, who purchased his interest by a registered sale deed dated 18-4-1912.

Jugan Singhs son, Mahendra Singh, is plaintiff 12 of the plaintiffs 3rd party, claiming 1.57 acres of land. The branch of Parasnath constitutes plaintiffs 1st party claiming 1.47 acres and the branch of Narsingh Singh constitutes plaintiffs 2nd party claiming 1.55 acres. The branch of Ram-khelawan is included in defendants 2, 3 and 4, and the branch of Prahlad is represented by Bankey Bihari Singh, defendant 5. Defendant 1 is Parsan Singh, who alone has contested the suit. The case of the plaintiffs was that the entire 7.20 acres of bakasht land comprised in khata Ho. 2 still continue to be in khas possession of the five branches of the family who are descendants of Sheogulam Singh, and that the defendants other than defendant 1 are in collusion with him and they admitted interference with the plaintiffs possession in respect of their share of the bakasht land entered in schedules 1 to 3 of the plaint.

They wanted to harvest the rabbi crops cultivated by the plaintiffs, which led to an apprehension of the breach of the peace. This gave rise to a proceeding under Sec.144, Criminal P. C., in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dinapore, but the order in that proceeding was made absolute against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, however, continued in possession of their aforesaid shares, but felt the necessity of seeking a declaration of title in view of the order under Sec.144, Criminal P. C., being passed against them. They accordingly prayed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession if the defendants in course of the pendency of the suit dispossessed the plaintiffs of the suit land.

2. Parsan Singh, defendant 1, who alone contested the suit, however, denied the plaintiffs title to get khas possession of the land. It was pleaded that defendant 1 obtained settlement of the land from the sixteen annas landlord on a rental of Rs. 47/8/- and payment of a premium of Rs. 500/-sometime in Jeth 1317 Fs., since which time defendant 1 has continued in cultivating possession of the land as a raiyat. The plaintifts suit is mala fide and barred by res judicata and limitation. It was alleged that after the settlement of 1317 Fs. in his favour by all the maliks, some of the co-sharer landlords instituted rent suits against this defendant. One of these suits was in 1925 which was framed under Sec.143A, Bihar Tenancy Act and was decreed, and in which it was held that defendant 1, in fact, had taken settlement of the land.

There was another rent suit (Rent Suit No. 3067 of 1938) filed in the Court of Munsif, 2nd Court, Patna by defendant 5 in which all the co-sharer landlords were impleaded, and in which it was held, 011 appeal, after a hard contest by the other co-sharer landlords, that this defendant, in fact, obtained a raiyati settlement of the entire land, and the plaintiffs suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court. The judgment of the lower appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial Court that had dismissed the suit, was upheld in appeal by the Hon ble Court. The finding, therefore, as to the status of defendant 1 would operate as r