JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - No. 1832. The only question on this appeal is whether the case falls within sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act so as to preclude an appeal. The amount of rent sued for in the suit being admittedly under fifty rupees. The suit was one for recovery of rent by a co-sharer landlord and there are allegations in the plaint to the effect that there has been separate collection of the rent. Apparently the plaint does not go so far as to say that there was a separate agreement to that effect. If that had been so the case would have been governed by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhabatrini Dasi v. Ekabbar Malita 5 C. L J- 253 (1906). The first Court dismissed the suit, then there was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Backergunge who reversed that decision and gave a decree in the Plaintiff's favour. The Defendant has appealed and he contends that no appeal lay from the Munsif to the Subordinate Judge under sec. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We think that contention must prevail and without going through the authorities in which there is at any rate some conflict of judicial view we think the case la governed in principle by the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Raja Promoda Nath Roy v. Raja Rimani Kantt Roy 12 C. W. N. 249 (1907), where such a suit is treated as governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. But if no appeal lies from the Munsif to the Subordinate Judge no appeal lies from the Subordinate Judge to this Court and therefore the appeal must fail and must be dismissed with costs. This judgment will govern the other appeals which are also dismissed with costs. But concurrently with the appeals applications were made under sec. 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Petitioner asking that the decree of the Subordinate Judge might be discharged on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and rules were granted. We think that these rules must be made absolute and that consequently the decree of the Subordinate Judge must be discharged. The Petitioners must have the costs of the rules. Hearing fee 1 gold mohur in such case. Doss, J. I agree.