JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff-Respondent against the Appellant as the principal Defendant, and three other persons as Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for cancellation of a bond and a kabuliyat in favour of Defendant No. 1, on the allegation that the Defendant No. 1 obtained them from the Plaintiff by fraud and coercion, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to only a four annas or one-fourth share of the land to which those documents relate, the remaining three-fourths share being the property of the Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. That suit, which was suit No. 51 of 1897 in the Court of the Munsif of Khulna, was tried along with another suit No. 151 of 1897 in the same Court, which was brought by the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the first-mentioned suit, against the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 in that suit, to obtain a declaration that they were entitled to a 12 annas share in the lands to which the kabuliyat and the bond relate, and that those documents were not binding on them. The first Court dismissed the first-mentioned suit, but decreed the second, declaring that the Plaintiffs in that suit, that is the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in the present suit, were entitled to a 12 annas share in the land in question, and that they were not bound by the bond and the kabuliyat. The decree in the second suit was not appealed against, and is become final. There was an appeal against the decree in the other suit by the Plaintiff, and on that appeal, the lower Appellate Court, while affirming the finding of the first Court that the case of fraud and coercion set up by the Plaintiff was not made out, modified its decree by limiting the operation of the kabuliyat and the bond to a 4 annas share and declaring them binding as against the Plaintiff only to the extent of a one-fourth share. Against that decision the Defendant No. 1 has appealed, and it is contended on his behalf that the Court of Appeal below is wrong in law in modifying the decree of the first Court, and declaring the documents operative only as regards a fourth share of the lands covered by them, which is the interest of the Plaintiff. Against that decision the Defendant No. 1 has appealed, and it is contended on his behalf that the Court of Appeal below is wrong in law in modifying the decree of the first Court, and declaring the documents operative only as regards a fourth share of the lands covered by them, which is the interest of the Plaintiff. It is argued that as the suit was based on the ground of fraud, and that ground was not made out, the suit ought to have been dismissed altogether, and it is further argued that even if it was open to the Plaintiff to raise the question of the extent of his share, he should still have been held bound by his contract to pay the increased rent mentioned in the kabuliyat in its entirety ; and in support of the latter branch of this contention the case of Burhunuddin Howladar v. Mohun Chunder Guha 8 C. L. R. 511 (1881) is relied upon. 2. In our opinion the Appellant's contention is not sound. The suit is based mainly, no doubt, on the ground of fraud ; but the Plaintiff also alleges in his plaint that his share in the tenure in question is only one-fourth, and that the remaining three-fourths belong to the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 ; and that allegation being found satisfied, the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that the Plaintiff could not be made liable for rent or bonus in respect of any share exceeding his own one-fourth share. In the suit brought by the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 against the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in this case, it was found in the presence of the latter that they were entitled to the share claimed by them, and that they were not bound by the kabaliyat, and that document was declared not enforceable against them at the instance of Defendant No. 1 ; and he did not appeal against that decree. That being so, Defendant No. 1 cannot now fairly ask us to make the Plaintiff alone liable for the rent and bonus in respect of the entire tenure. That being so, Defendant No. 1 cannot now fairly ask us to make the Plaintiff alone liable for the rent and bonus in respect of the entire tenure. As for the case of Burhunuddin Howladar v. Mohun Chunder Guha 8 C. L. R. 511 (1881) cited for the Appellant, that is distinguishable from the present, as it was there found that the contract entered into by one of the co-sharers in the tenure, for the payment of increased rent, had been acquiesced in by the other co-sharers. On the application of the Appellant which was not opposed by the other side, we allowed the parties time to settle this case, or to take steps to have the decree in the other suit referred to above, modified. As the learned vakils on both sides has intimated to us that no settlement has been come to nor any successful application made to have the decree in the other suit modified, we must, for the reasons stated above, dismiss the appeal with costs. JUDGMENT