JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Rajshahye, dated the 11th February 1899. The facts of the case, out of which this appeal arose, are as follows:--One Nitya Nund Sarkar in 1891 sued Ram Narain for the rent of a small plot of land. Ram Narain denied the title of Nitya Nund Sarkar ; and he further denied settlement by him of the land in dispute and pleaded title of his own through his wife. That suit was dismissed. The Plaintiffs then brought the present suit to establish title to and recover possession of the disputed land as also to obtain mesne profits. 2. The first Court decreed the suit. 3. On appeal the District Judge held that the suit was barred by res judicata, a plea which was not raised by the Appellant in the first Court ; and he refused to enter into the merits of the case and dismissed the suit on this preliminary point. 4. The Plaintiffs now appeal ; and the learned pleader who appears on their behalf relies on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dwarka Nath Roy v. Ram Chand Aich I. L. R. 26 Cal. 428 (1899) which had not been published of the time the District Judge decided this case ; and he contends, on the authority of this ruling that the learned Judge's decision is wrong. 5. We think that this contention must prevail ; and there are various reasons why we must hold that the suit is not barred by res judicata. In the first place we are informed that the parties are not the same. The wife of the Defendant No. 1 and two formal parties have been added in this suit. The suit is not barred against them by res judicata. Then the former suit was only a rent suit ; and the Full Bench decision laid down that a decision in a suit brought for rent by a Plaintiff against a person who is alleged to have been his tenant in respect of certain land does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit brought by the same Plaintiff for establishment of his title to the land. 6. The pleader for the Respondents, however, relies upon the case of Radha Madhub Holdar v. Monohur Mukerji I. L. R. 15 Cal. 6. The pleader for the Respondents, however, relies upon the case of Radha Madhub Holdar v. Monohur Mukerji I. L. R. 15 Cal. 756 (1888) in which it is laid down that the decision of a rent suit, which involves a question of title is res judicata in a subsequent suit. 7. It is sufficient to say in reply to this argument that the question of title was not directly and substantially involved in the previous suit. The judgment in that rent suit has not been made part of the Paper-book, of the present appeal. But we gather from the judgment of the District Judge that the issue, as framed in the suit was,--"Does the relation of landlord and tenant exist between the parties ?" That according to the District Judge was the issue raised and decided. Accordingly, the question of title was not directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the previous suit. The learned Judge seems to think that the question was res judicata because the decision of the issue "Does relation of landlord and tenant exist between the parties depends upon the decision of two issues of fact, namely, (i) has the Plaintiff proved his title and (ii) has he proved the Defendant's admission as a tenant by the predecessor through whom the Plaintiff claims ?" We, however, do not agree with the Judge in this respect. The question of title may have been incidentally enquired into in the former rent suit. It may have been incidentally involved in the issue as to whether the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. But it was certainly not directly raised between them, and there is nothing to show that it was decided in that suit in such a manner as to make the question of title in this case res judicata. 8. For these reasons we decree this appeal and remand the suit to the District Judge for a decision upon the merits. The costs will abide the result.