JUDGMENT

Ryves, J. - Musammat Chatura Kunwar, who was recorded in the khewat as a co-sharer, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises u/s 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act for her share of the profits for the years in suit against her deceased husband's brother, Baldeo Singh, the defendant-appellant here. The main defence was that Lachhman Singh, the husband of Musammat Chatura Kunwar, was the brother of Baldeo Singh defendant and joint with him, that on the death of Lachhman Singh, Baldeo Singh had at the request of the plaintiff got her name entered in the revenue papers only for her consolation and that she had no proprietary right. The Trial Court refused to go into this question and gave the plaintiff a decree as her name was recorded in the khewat. The defendant appealed. During the pendency of the appeal the defendant filed a suit in the Civil Court and obtained a decree which declared that Musammat Chatura Kunwar was not a co-sharer. This decree was passed, it appears, on the strength of a compromise to which Musammat Chatura Kunwar was a party in a previous suit which was brought in 1899 for profits, in which she admitted that she was not a co-sharer and that her name was merely entered for maintenance and consolation. A copy of this decree was produced before the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. Thereupon he fixed two points for decision:

(1) Was the lower Court right in holding the plaintiff-respondent to be a so sharer and as such entitled to bring the suit?

(3) If so, is this Court nevertheless bound or entitled to upset the decision of the lower Court on the ground that since the lower Court's decree was passed, the appellant has obtained a decree of a Civil Court declaring the respondent not to be a co-sharer?

2. On the first point he held that the lower Court was right in refusing to look at anything except the entries in the khewat, and on the second point after considering two cases to which we shall presently refer, held that there was no ruling which went as far as to lay down that an Appellate Revenue Court must pay regard to a declaration obtained after the decision of the case by the Revenue Court of first instance and having come to the conclusion that at the time the Revenue Court had passed its decree, the plaintiff was recorded a co-sharer, held that its decision was right. On appeal before us it has been argued that this case cannot be distinguished from the Full Bench case of Bhawani Singh v. Dilawar Khan 1 Ind. Cas. 886 : 31 A. 253 : 6 A.L.J. 145 (F.B.). The only difference in the facts between that case and this lies in the circumstance that in that case an issue was remitted by the District Judge in whose Court an appeal was pending. Before that issue could be decided, the defendant in that case brought a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration of his title and obtained a decree in his favour. He produced this decree before the Assistant Collector at the trial of the issue remanded to him, but that Court refused to admit it in evidence. On appeal although this decree was before the District Judgee held that until the defendant had got the village records amended in his favour in accordance with that decree, no effect could be given to it in a suit of this nature, and that the defendants must pay profits according to the recorded shares as they then stood in the khewat. In principle it seems to me that that ease cannot be distinguished from the present. In that case it was held, following a previous decision of this Court [Durga Shankar v. Gur Charan A.W.N. (1906) 1 : 2 A.L.J. 834 that when as between parties to a revenue suit, a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the title to the property adversely to the plaintiff who claims profits, the Revenue Court is not competent to ignore that decision, and this Court decreed the appeal and remanded the case. On behalf of the respondent before us it has been argued that the decision of the majority of the Judges in the Full Bench