JUDGMENT

Niamatullah, J. - Plaintiff-respondent brought the two suits out of which these consolidated appeals Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 1926 have arisen for recovery of profits from the defendant-appellant for the years 1329-1332 F. She claimed to be a recorded cosharer of khatas 1 to 4, mahals Umri and Ghair Khwastgaran in village Pikhlauni, district Aligarh. The defendant-appellant who is the lambardar admittedly collected the rent of these mahals during the years in suit.

2. The defendant contested the claim on the ground that the plaintiff has no proprietary right left in the aforesaid mahals as by a civil Court decree passed in a suit for partition between her and other cosharers including the defendant a share in village Basti Kazi (not in dispute) was allotted to her in lieu of her share in the mahals in dispute and other properties. That suit related to revenue paying properties and other immovable properties.

3. The Courts below have decreed the suits awarding Rs. 131-11-0 as the plaintiff's share of profits. Except as regards village expenses to be hereafter noticed, no question has been raised before me concerning the amount of profits decreed.

4. The principal contention in second appeal is that the plaintiff's rights having been determined by a decree of a competent Court the entries in the revenue records should not be allowed to prevail so as to override the terms of that decree. I may mention at the outset that the parties are not agreed as regards the effect of the decree and as to whether it can prove to demonstration that the existing entries in the revenue record are erroneous. Unless the Court is precluded from going behind such entries it should examine and construe the decree to ascertain if the plaintiff lost her right to recover the profits claimed by her, as contended by the defendant.

5. I think the Courts below have rightly held that the entries in the revenue registers for the years in suit are decisive of the plaintiff's claim for profits. There was at one time a great divergence of judicial opinion in this Court as to whether the presumption enjoined by Section 201(3), Agra Tenancy Act 2 of 1901, is conclusive and absolute, so as to exclude all evidence to the contrary, or, is only rebuttable, in which case the correctness of entries can be the subject of investigation in a suit for profits. The Full Bench case Durga Prasad v. Hazari Singh [1911] 33 All. 799, heard by all the Judges of the Court, as then constituted, has finally set the controversy at rest and it must be held, as ruled in that case, that entries in the revenue register must be given effect to in a suit for profits, in so far as they record the plaintiff's proprietary rights, however clear and incontrovertible the proof to the contrary may be. Unless it operates as res judicata a judgment or decree, previously obtained, declaring rights which are inconsistent with the entries, is no more than a piece of evidence rebutting the entries subsequently called in question and as such should be ignored like any other evidence offered to prove the incorrectness of those entries. The decree relied on by the defendant bears the date 25th October 1920(1327F) and was passed in a suit instituted on 10th July 1920. The profits claimed are for 1329-1332 F (1922-1925) for which years the entries record the plaintiff as a cosharer. The decree cannot operate as res judicata inasmuch as the question directly and substantially in issue now is whether the plaintiff-appellant had certain proprietary rights in the years 1329-1332 F., which was not, and could not, be in issue in the suit in which the decree was passed two years previously by a civil Court which is not competent to try the present suit. It is conceivable, (I do not suggest that such is the case) that some events happened in the interval which altered the rights determined by the decree and which justify the entries. If, therefore, the decree be allowed to contradict the entries, evidence relating t