JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent. The Plaintiff claimed rent from 1305 to 1308, B. S., both years inclusive. For the first-mentioned year 1305, the rent claimed was at the rate of Rs. 28-2-0 and, for each of the subsequent years, it was at the rate of Rs. 51-8-0. The Defendant pleaded that his rent was, as fixed by an etmami pottah granted by the Plaintiff's predecessor on the 17th Sravan 1273 (1866), only Rs. 28-2-0, and that the Plaintiff could not recover more than that amount. It appears, however, that the Plaintiff produced in support of his case the khewat prepared in course of the Cadastral Survey showing that the rent then settled was Rs. 51-8-0. It does not, however, appear, upon the record of this case, whether there was any application for settlement of rent, properly so called, under sec. 192 or any other section of Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. All that the khewat papers show is that present rent is Rs. 51-8-0; and the settled rent is also put down at the same figure. The Munsif found that the rent payable by the Defendant at the time of the settlement proceedings was Rs. 28-2-0, and not Rs. 51-8-0 and that the entry, as made in the khewat papers, was the outcome of a misrepresentation on the part of the landlord and, In that view of the matter, he refused to give effect to that document, and allowed the Plaintiff a decree at the rate mentioned In the etmami pottah. That judgment has, however, been set aside by the District Judge on appeal by the Plaintiff; and the only ground stated by that officer in his judgment is that the lease propounded by the Defendant cannot affect the right of the Plaintiff claimed in the suit which relates to a period subsequent to the settlement proceedings. And he relies, in support of his view, upon the case of Raja Padmanund Singh v. Ghanasyam Misser 6 C W. N. 914 (1902). This decision however, we notice, has been overruled by a subsequent decision of this Court in review. It is reported in I. L. R. 32 Cal. 336 Also reported in 9 C. W. N. 610 (1903). And he relies, in support of his view, upon the case of Raja Padmanund Singh v. Ghanasyam Misser 6 C W. N. 914 (1902). This decision however, we notice, has been overruled by a subsequent decision of this Court in review. It is reported in I. L. R. 32 Cal. 336 Also reported in 9 C. W. N. 610 (1903). We have, however, to decide the question whether, as assumed by the learned Judge, the khewat papers must be taken to be conclusive between the parties as regards the rent payable by the Defendant. No doubt, if there was an application for settlement of rent, properly so called, and the rent was settled and the record-of-rights duly prepared, such record would have the effect of a decree (see sec 9 of the Amending Act III (B. C.) of 1898). But, as we have already noticed, there is nothing upon the record of this case to show that there was any application for settlement of rent or that there was any proceeding taken In accordance with law towards that end; and the entries appearing upon the khewat papers do not by themselves afford any guarantee that there was any settlement of rent really effected. If there was no settlement of rent under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the entry in the record-of-rights, if it was duly published, would be only prima facie evidence in favour of the landlord -evidence which would have to be rebutted by the tenant; and the question is whether that prima facie evidence has been so rebutted by the Defendant by the production of the lease of the year 1273. These are matters which have not been gone into by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. We are, therefore, constrained to send back the case to him for reconsideration, having regard to the observations that we have already made. We might add that if the learned Judge be of opinion that, with a view to determine the case satisfactorily between the parties, it is necessary to call for any fresh evidence, it would be quite open to him to do BO. With these remarks, the case is remanded to the lower Appellate Court. Costs will abide the result.