Wallis, J.

1. I agree with Munro J. that the extent of the defendants holding under the plaintiff is res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 430 of 1906. In that case the present plaintiff, who held a five years lease of the village from the registered landholder, sued the present defendant to recover rent for faslies 1314 and 1315 in the shape of Rajabagam, or landholders share of the produce, of certain jeroyati lands in the village in the occupation of the defendant. To enable the plaintiff to succeed it was necessary for him to show under Section 7 of the Rent Recovery Act 1865 that he had tendered a proper patta to the defendant for each fasli, or that it had been agreed to dispense with the tender. under Section 4 the patta had to contain the local description and extent of the land. The plaintiff pleaded that he had tendered a proper pattah for each fasli. The defendant denied the tenders and pleaded further that the pattas alleged to have been tendered were not proper instancing certain payments claimed. He pleaded further that " the extent of the defendants jeroyati land (that is, of the land in respect of which the plaintiff claimed rent) has been very m