JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - This is an appeal in a suit for rent valued at lees than Rs. 50. The Plaintiff claimed rent from the Defendants on the ground of the Defendants holding under his mirasi tenure. The Defendants, inter alia, pleaded that the juma was held by them as raiyats under the putni and the dur-putni of the Plaintiff and his mother and not under the mirasi tenure of the Plaintiff. There were also questions raised as to payment and the amount of juma annually payable by the Defendants. The Munsif held that the Plaintiff had failed to make out his case, that the Defendants were holding the land as tenants under his mirasi tenure, and without deciding the issues of payment and the amount of juma, dismissed the suit. 2. There was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge who decreed the suit. Afterwards there was an application for review which was admitted by another Subordinate Judge and ultimately this last Subordinate Judge held that, under sec. 153, cl. (b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, no appeal lay as the Mnusif who originally decided the case had final jurisdiction under that section. 3. Against this decree the present appeal has been filed and there is also an application under sec. 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main contention of the Appellant is that an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge inasmuch as the Munsif had come to a decision as to title as between parties having conflicting claims to the land. 4. We are unable to agree in this contention. The Defendants claimed to hold the land under the Plaintiff and his mother who, the Defendants alleged, had a right different from that churned in the suit. But there were no parties present in Court, having conflicting claims to the land. The question to by decided was between the Plaintiff on one side and the Defendants on the other, who did not claim any title in themselves as against the Plaintiff to the laud covered by the rent suit. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 2234 of 1898, decided on the 5th January 1900. Since reported, sec. 8 C. W. N. 434 In that case the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant claimed to be raiyats under the same landlord. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of this Court in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 2234 of 1898, decided on the 5th January 1900. Since reported, sec. 8 C. W. N. 434 In that case the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant claimed to be raiyats under the same landlord. The Plaintiff stated that the Defendant was a sub-raiyat. The Defendant stared that he was not a sub-raiyat but had the same status as the Plaintiff himself. There were thus in that case conflicting interests set up by the parties and decided. This case, therefore, is distinguishable. The case of Baijnath Sahoo v. Ramdour Roy 7 C. L. R. 369 (1880) was one under Act VIII (B. C.) of 1869 and there was a prayer in the plaint for ejectment under sec. 52 of that Act, If, therefore, has no application to the present case. We think that the Subordinate Judge who decided the case finally after admitting the application for review is right in the view that he has taken and that the appeal and the application under sec. 622, Code of Civil Procedure, must therefore be dismissed with costs.