A consent decree is as binding upon the parties as a decree passed by invitum.

GUHA RAY, J. :- This is an appeal on behalf of the heirs of the referring claimant Dulal Chand Bose, that is, Claimant No. 1 from the judgment of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Tribunal confirming the award of the Collector and dismissing the reference under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings relate to municipal premises No. 188/2 Maniktola Main Road, measuring 4 bighas and 16 cottas. Admittedly it forms the western part of a larger holding originally numbered premises No. 109 and measuring 18 bighas and 12 cottas. This larger holding really consisted of two holdings namely Nos. 15 and 18 in Sub-division II, Division 3, Dihi Panchannagram under the Collectorate of 24 Parganas. The eastern and the largest part of the holding is numbered premises No. 188 and measures 10 bighas 2 cottas and the central part is premises No. 188/1 measuring 3 bighas 14 cottas.

2. The referring claimant is admittedly the landlord of all the premises, namely, premises Nos. 188, 188/1 and 188/2 and admittedly claimants. Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (e) are tenants under him. The latter claimed a mokarari mourashi tenancy which the former disputed but the Collector upheld the claim of the latter and awarded to them as compensation ill all the sum of Rs. 1,29,554-2-4 only and to the former the sum of Rs. 1567-5-8 pies calculated on the basis of 30 times the proportionate annual rent for 4 bighas and 16 cottas. The reference made at the instance of Dulal Chandra Bose who died after the reference was made raises only a question of apportionment as between the two sets of claimants and the whole question depends on the status of the second set of claimants who are admittedly tenants under the first. According to the referring claimant the other claimants are merely thika tenants while according to themselves, they are mokarari mourashi tenants. As the learned President of the Tribunal found them to be mourashi mokarari tenants, the only question for decision in this appeal is whether that finding is correct.

3. The facts, as far as they are now beyond dispute, are briefly that of the two holdings, namely, Nos. 15 and 18, which originally made up municipal premises No. 109, the first was recorded in Mr.Crows proceedings (vide Exs. 2-4 at pages 65-70 of the paper-book in which the year of the proceedings is not noted, though Mr. Mitra on behalf of the appellants argued that these were of 1480) in the name of Mathur Mohan Bose and others as proprietors and the second in the name of Govinda Chandra Sarkar and others. On 18-11-1872, Manindra Ghosh filed before the Deputy Collector, 24 Parganas, a petition Ex. 6 (page 2, part II of the paper-book) alleging that in the recent settlement survey the land of the two holdings had been measured in his name and praying for the grant of a potta in his favour on acceptance of a kabuliat from him. He was the called upon to produce his kobala. Exhibit 7 is the final order of the Deputy Collector on this application. It appears from Ex. 7 that the twa holdings were surveyed in May, evidently of the year 1872, as one property in consequence of both holdings then belonging to the estate of Kali Singhee who subsequently died and holding No. 15 was sold by the Receiver of the High Court in respect of Kali Singhees estate to Manindra Ghosh, but the boundaries entered in the deed embraced both the holdings Nos. 15 and 16. As regards holding No. 18, one Trailokyamani Dasi, mother of the late Singhee applied for patta but to this Manindra Ghosh objected. Both the parties were accordingly referred to the Civil Court and the grant of pattas in respect of any of the two holdings was postponed. Exhibit 8 is the certified copy of a kabuliat executed by Manindra Ghosh in respect of holdings Nos. 15 and 18 and though it is dated 6-11-1873 the kabuliet actually appears to have been executed on 17-11-1873. Manindra died leaving two sons, Trailokya and Amarnath and a widow Kshetramani Dasi and Amarnath instituted Partiti