JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit for arrears of rent from 1299 to 1302. The Plaintiff says that the Defendant is the tenant of the land in dispute; that the rent is Rs. 23-8 annas per annum, and that the rent is in arrears.

2. The Defendant says that he is not the tenant, and he is not in occupation of the land in dispute; that the rent payable is not Rs. 23-8, but Rs. 13-8, and that he owes the Plaintiff nothing.

3. The lower Appellate Court in deciding the question whether the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, mainly relies upon a decree which, it appears, was obtained by the Plaintiff's ijardar, and he has, therefore, held that the relation of landlord and tenant did exist, and he has found the rent to be Rs. 23-8, and has given the Plaintiff a decree for the arrears claimed.

4. The learned pleader, who appears for the Defendant-Appellant, in this case, urges that this decree is not evidence against his client for three reasons, first, that the Plaintiff does not claim under the ijardars who obtained the decree; sccond, that this decree was satisfied not by the Defendant, but by one Lal Mohun Majumdar, and third, that in the suit in which the decree in question w