JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. It was instituted by a 8-anna co-sharer in a zamindari in respect of his share of the rent alleging that the rent was Rs. 60 of which he was entitled to one moiety. The Defendant's case was that the rent was much lower, namely, Rs. 45. The Court of Appeal below held that, though there is no evidence to show the rate at which the Plaintiff's vendors realized rent from the tenant Defendant yet, as the Plaintiff's co-sharers recovered decrees for rent in respect of their share at the rate of Rs. 30 per year, treating the rent as Rs. 60, those decrees are conclusive between the parties to the suit. We hardly think that the attention of the Subordinate Judge was called to the cases of Surender Nath Pal Chowdhry v. Brojo Nath Pal Chowdhry ILR (1886) Cal. 352 and Tepu Khan v. Rajani Mohun Das ILR (1898) Cal. 522 decided by two different Full Benches of this Court. These cases have settled the law upon the question, namely, that if such decrees for rent were obtained by a co-sharer or co-sharers for his or their share of the rent, they are neither conclusive between the Plaintiff and the raiyat Defendant, nor are they admissible in evidence between them, the subject-matter of the two suits being different and the Plaintiff not being a party to the previous suits. In this view of the matter, we think that the decree of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the Court of first instance which allowed the Plaintiff a decree at the admitted rate restored with proportionate costs.