The finality of a previous decision can impact the entertainability of certain pleas in subsequent cases.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Both the Civil Revision petition and the First Appeal involve the same parties. The issues raised are also identical. Both were heard analogously and have been disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Mr. M. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties.

3. As the revision petition and the appeal relate to two different suits namely Rent Suit No. 3/84 and Rent Suit No. 1/93, narration of the facts pertaining thereto would be separately made.

4. The petitioners instituted four suits being Rent Suit Nos. 3/84, 4/87, 1/90 and 1/93 against the Respondents/Opposite Parties as defendants praying for a decree inter alia for paddy rent @ 22 mounds 10 kati per year together with compensation for delayed deposit thereof. The Suits relate to different periods of the Bengali Calendar year. The Rent Suit No. 1/93 and the Rent Suit No.3/84 with which we are concerned correspond to 1397 BS to 1399 BS and 1388 BS to 1390 BS respectively. Rent suit No.1/93 from which Rent Appeal No .4/96 had arisen relates to CRP No. 353/2002. Rent Suit No.3/84 pertaining to Rent Appeal No. 3/96 is involved in FAO No. 44/2001.

5. The pleaded facts are common. According to the petitioners/appellants, the predecessor in interest of the Opposite parties/respondents, late Dhaneswar Singh took settlement of the suit land from late Atambi Bramhani, predecessor in interest of the petitioners/appellants on the stipulation of paying rent @ 22 mounds 10 kati of paddy every year. In terms of the agreed covenant, the petitioners/appellants--even after the death of Atambi Bramhani--had been collecting the paddy rent from Dhaneswar Singh, the predecessor in interest of the Respondents/Opposite Parties and after his demise, they deposited the paddy rent upto the year 1383 BS and thereafter defaulted. A spate of litigations followed, amongst others, in the form of Rent Suit No. 12/1981"in which the petitioners plaintiffs prayed for a decree for paddy rent @ 22 mounds 10 kati per year and compensation for the delayed deposit thereof by the tenants.

6. The Opposite parties/respondents, in addition to the challenge bearing on the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and absence of cause of action, denied to have paid the rent in kind by way of paddy and pleaded that as per the agreement they and their predecessor in interest had paid rent @ Rs. 45/- per year initially which was later on enhanced to Rs. 50/-. They in essence denied the pleaded assertion about the stipulation of deposit of 22 mounds and 10 kati paddy per year, more particularly, contending that the suit land was a one crop and low lying land, the yield whereof fell in the years of heavy rainfall. They denied that the paddy was sold at Rs. 100/150 per mound and that the petitioners appellants were entitled to receive 67 mounds and 10 kati or Rs. 670/- for three years.

Incidentally, in both the suits the petitioners appellants had prayed for a decree for the aforementioned 22 mounds 10 kati of paddy per year or the money value thereof. Noticeably, in their written statement, the Opposite parties/respondents did not either categorically deny that they were in default in the payment of rent or that the demand made by the petitioners appellants was barred under the proviso to Section 28 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

7. The learned trial Court by the common judgment and order dated 24.09.1996 decreed all the four suits observing that there was no denial of default and that the only contention of the Opposite parties/respondents was that the rent was payable @ Rs. 50/- per year. The learned trial Court took note of the order dated 22.08.1992 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 120/1985 between the same parties involving the same land and introduced in evidence as Ext.4 and concluded that the petitioners we