JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiffs sued for rent at a certain rate stated to have been declared in the proceedings of the Settlement Officer who was making a record-of-rights under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Defendant stated that the rate of rent was lower and as evidence of this, he relied on a rent-decree given at this rate. 2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that the settlement proceedings cannot have any binding effect on the Defendant by reason of that decree and it remarked that if the settlement proceedings were in progress when the suit in which that decree was passed was under trial, it was inconceivable that the Defendant should have not produced the rent-decree so as to have the rate of rent settled in accordance with it. 3. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not shown to him when the settlement record-of-rights was finally published so as to make the proceedings of the Settlement Officer binding on the parties. It has been shown to us in second appeal by the Plaintiffs that the final publication of the record-of-rights was made on the 13th January 1894. This appears from the settlement proceedings which are part of the record. The suit is for rent from 1895 to 1897 and therefore the rate of rent which the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim is that stated in those settlement proceedings. The decree on which the Defendant relies, was for rent from 1886 to 1890 and cannot affect the rate claimed in the present suit, Under such circumstances we think that the decree of both the Courts should be set aside and a decree given to the Plaintiffs for the amount claimed with costs in all Courts.