The presumption of accuracy of the record of rights under Section 103b of the Bengal Tenancy Act and Section 44 (4) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act does not apply after a civil court decision on the same issue, as the civil court decision is res judicata and binding on the parties.

( 1 ) THIS is a Second Appeal in a partition suit. The defendant, Kazi Mohammad Hossain is the appellant.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff commenced the suit for partition of lands mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint to the extent of plaintiff's 7 annas 12 gandas 2 krantis 14 tils share therein. The allegation of the plaintiff was that he was in joint possession of the undivided share in the suit lands and that the defendant appellant was in undivided possession of the remaining share. The plaintiff's case was that he acquirer tenancy settlement of (i) 1 anna 15 gandas 2 karas 14 tils from a co-sharer landlord, Pannasundari Devi on the 15th Bhadra, 1351 B. S. (ii) 1 anna 6 gandas 2 karas 2 krantis share from Biren Roy who acquired the interest of another co-sharer landlord, Rajendra Sanyal on the 3rd of Agrahayan. 1352 B. S. (iii) 2 annas 5 gandas share from another co-sharer landlord Shiba Sati Trust Estate on the 20th Chaitra. 1354 B. S. (iv) 2 annas 5 gandas share from another co-sharer landlord, namelv, the Estate of Ashutosh Mitra and others on the 15th Chaitra, 1351 B. S. After these aforesaid settlements the plaintiff alleged that he was in ejmali and joint possession with the defendant but as the joint possession was proving inconvenient he instituted this partition suit.

( 3 ) THE defence was a denial of the plaintiff's title and the joint possession. The defendant appellant had claimed that he was in possession of the entire 16 annas share of the lands in suit on taking tenancy settlement from all the co-sharer landlords before the Settlement alleged by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE trial court found that the plaintiff had really shares to the extent of 6 annas 5 gan-das 2 karas 14 tils and not 7 annas and odd as alleged and also found that the plaintiff was in joint possession in respect of the said share of the defendant. Therefore, the trial court passed a preliminary decree in part for partition in favour of the plaintiff declaring the aforesaid share of the plaintiff. There was an appeal and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree or the trial court.

( 5 ) THE lower appellate court which was the last court of fact found that the defendant had not filed any scrap of paper to show that he really obtained settlement previous to the settlement obtained by the plaintiff. It was also found that except the uncorroborated oral testimony of the defendant appellant himself there was nothing to support the appellant's claim. The defendant's allegation that all the dakhilas produced by the plaintiff were concocted and fabricated was found to be entirely without substance. The defendant never even ventured to examine the landlord or their men nor did he venture to call for any paper from the landlord's sherista in support of his contention. The landlords themselves are not challenging at all the settlements alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that there was no reason to interfere with the learned Munsifs finding that the plaintiff had really the tenancy title in respect of the lands in suit to the extent of 6 annas 5 gandas 1 kara 14 tils.

( 6 ) IT was also found as a fact by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff was in joint possession with the defendant.

( 7 ) ON those facts it is difficult to see what point of law can arise in the second appeal. Mr. Ghosh for the appellant at one stage urged that Samasujuha who was one of the co-sharers was not joined in the partition suit and, therefore, the suit was bad. This point has no substance. At the trial court the defendant abandoned this point and at the lower appellate court he did not urge or press such point. The reason may not be far too seek. That reason is that the appellant himself makes the case that he took settlement from this alleged absent co-sharer. I, therefore, overrule this point.

( 8 ) MR. Ghosh for the appellant in fairness, must be said to have re