The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party succeeding in an appeal from the first decision is entitled to regard intermediate decrees as superseded and enforce rights based on the first decision. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for fresh determination of proper rent for succeeding Faslis.

John Wallis, C.J.

1. In this case, a batch of appeals and a connected batch of second appeals have been argued together. The appeals are from decrees of the Subordinate judge of Bezwada ordering the defendant Zemindar to refund to his tenants excess rents for Fasli 1316 and the following Faslis which the Zemindar has recovered from them by suits on the authority of the decision of this Court in Venkata Nara-simha Naidu v. Kasaraneni China Bapayya (1908) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 12 between the same parties for Fasli 1315, When these suits were decreed, the decree of this Court was under appeal to the Privy Council which reversed it in Ravi Veeraraghavulu v. Venkata Narasimha Naidu Bahadur (1914) I.L.R. 37 M. 443 : 27 M.L.J. 451 (P.C). The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suits on the authority of Shama Pershad Roy Chowdhry v. Hurro Pershad Roy Chowdury (1865) 10 M.I.A. 203 as interpreted by the majority of the Full Bench in Jogesh Chunder Dutt v. Kalichurn Dutt (1877) I.L.R. 3 C. 30 F.B. In Shama Prasad Roy Chowdhry v. Hurro Prasad Chowdhry (1865) 10 M.I.A. 203. the defendant had brought two earlier suits against the plaintiff to recover his share of a debt which the plaintiff was entitled to recover from third parties. The first suit was for his share of the principal with interest thereon to the year 1821. The second suit was for his share in the subsequent interest. The Sudder Adalat decreed the first suit, and the second suit was decreed on the authority of the decision in the first suit and the money recovered while the decree of the first suit was under appeal to the Privy Council which reversed the decree of the Sudder Adalat and remanded that suit. In these circumstances the Judicial Committee held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money which had been recovered from him in execution of the decree in the second suit. The Judgment in the second suit they observed must be held to be subsisting and valid until it was reversed or superseded by some ulterior proceedings, and they held that in the circumstances. The case the decrees in the second suit as well as the decree in the first suit were superseded by their judgment in the appeal in the first suit. They observed that the order in Council clearly intended that all the rights and liabilities of the parties should be adjusted on the remand in the first suit, and that it would be in contravention of the order to permit the decree obtained while the appeal was pending to interfere with this purpose. Moreover they observed that the decrees in the second suit re led on precisely the same cause of suit as the decree which was reversed by the Privy Council and this though the interest sought to be recovered in the two suits was in respect of different periods. Consequently they considered that the decrees in the second suit must be held to be mere subordinate and dependent decrees and not to remain in force when the decree on which they were dependent had been reversed. The majority of the Full Bench in Jogesh Ghunder Dull v. Kalichurn Dutt (1877) I.L.R. 3 Cal. 30. (F.B.) held that where the rate of rent had been fixed by decree for one year and rent for subsequent years had been recovered by the landlord from the tenant on the authority of that decision while it was under appeal to a higher court which reversed it, the tenant was entitled to sue to recover the excess rent paid by him in the subsequent suits which were decided on the authority of the decision in the first case. The principle of this case would seem to be that where the extent of a recurring liability such as the liability to pay rent, has been determined in one suit, and other suits between the same parties as to subsequent periods have been decided on the authority of that decision while it was itself under appeal to a higher court, the party who ultimately succeeds in the appeal from the first decision is entitled to regard the intermediate decrees as superseded and to enforce his rights as regard