JUDGMENT 1. This appeal relates to the claim of the Plaintiffs to certain plots of land as rent-free situated within the zamindari of the Raja of Tipperah. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit holding that, as regards a part of the claim in suit, it is barred by the application of the principle of res-judicata and, as regards the other part, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their rent-free title, though they were in possession for a very long time. The Plaintiffs are admittedly tenants in respect of other lands under the Raja, and the real question was whether the decision of the Settlement Officer settling rents of the lands in suit was correct. 2. The onus of proof was on the Plaintiffs, firstly, on the ground that they were the Plaintiffs and, secondly, on the ground that the decision of the Settlement Officer was against them. All that they have succeeded in proving to the satisfaction of the lower Appellate Court is that they were in possession-possession quite consistent with their tenant right. The sands and the other documents put in to prove their rent-free title have been disbelieved. We cannot, therefore, interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate Court on this point. 3. Then, as regards the question of the applicability of the doctrine of rears judicator, the contention before us is that the Settlement Officer as well as the Special Judge and this Court all acted in a proceeding in which the decision was given before the 2nd November 1898, the date of the commencement of Act III (B. C.) of 1898. The question raised in this case was decided by this Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 533 of 1900 and Principal and Stephen, JJ., held, on the 5th November 1903, that sec. 9 of Act III (B. C.) of 1898 prevented the adjudication by a Civil Court of the same matter which had been adjudicated on by the Settlement Officer under the Act as it stood before 1898. Sec. 9 is clear in its terms and we agree with the learned Judges who decided S. A. 533 of 1900 that the decision of the Settlement Officer affirmed by the Special Judge is final between the parties on the question of title raised in the present case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.