JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals arise out of two rent-suits. The plaintiffs claim rent on the Record of Rights from which it appears that the plaintiffs held as settlement-holders under Government in a khas mahal and the defendants are tenants under them. 2. The defense set up is that the defendants held the land by virtue of a kaimi lease granted by certain patnidars, the plaintiffs in this suit having also an interest in that patni. 3. The first Court held that the defendants established their plea and dismissed the suit. 4. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed this decision and decreed the suite, holding, that Section 104 H of the Bengal Tenancy Act gave a finality to the rents settled in the Record of Rights. The defendants, we should mention, had attacked the Record of Rights by a suit u/s 104 H which was dismissed. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Judge is right and it is clearly supported by the authority of the cases of Prasanna Kumar Adhikari v. Rachimuddin Howladar 15 Ind. Cas. 327 : 17 C.W.N. 153 and Baikuntha Nath Ghose v. Sadananda Mahapatra 46 Ind. Cas. 287 : 23 C.W.N. 516. 5. On behalf of the defendants-appellants it is contended that the entry and decision of the Settlement Officer are no bar to their raising this plea of title. Whether such a plea can still be raised in a suit properly brought for the purpose, it is not necessary to decide. On the authorities cited, it is quite clear that the plea cannot be raised in a rent suit. 6. We accordingly dismiss these appeals with costs in each case.