Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal, against the judgment of Mr. Justice Ratikant Choudnury, who has affirmed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

2. Two main questions arise : the first, whether decrees, passed in favour of Baidyanath Dutt, defendant-respondent, in Rent Appeals 41 and 42 of 1944-45, by the Deputy Commissioner, Manbhum, are without jurisdiction; and the second, even if so, whether Sec. 47, Code of Civil Procedure, is a bar to the present suit of the plaintiffs-appellants.

3. The facts, in brief, are these : Shambhu Nath Dutta and his three other brothers, who were brothers of Baidyanath Dutta, defendant-respondent 1, brought two rent suits against the plaintiffs, in the court of the Deputy Collector at Purulia under Sec.142 (1) (B) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Bengal Act VI of 1908), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". To each of these suits, Baidyanath Dutt, defendant-respondent 1, was made a pro forma defendant. The plaintiffs, of those suits, claimed -/12/- interest in the claimed holding, and, alleged that their brother, Baidyanath Dutt, the pro forma defendant of tho