JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. - These forty appeals arise out of as many suits for recovery of cesses due to the plaintiff on account of rent-free lands within his estate. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suits on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to realise cesses from the tenant defendants, as he had not served the notices contemplated by section 54 of the Bengal Cess Act. The contention of the appellant is that this view is erroneous in law. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the appeals are incompetent u/s 153 Bengal Tenancy Act. That section bars a second appeal in suits for rent where the decree is passed by a District Judge, Additional District Judge or Subordinate Judge and the amount claimed in the suit does not exceed Rs. 100 unless a question of a special character has been decided by the decree under appeal. The contention of the respondents is that this provision read with section 47 of the Cess Act renders all the appeals incompetent. In support of this position they have placed reliance upon the decisions in Mohesh Chunder Chattopadhya v. Umatara Deby [1889] 16 Cal 638, and Rajani Kanta Nag v. Jageshwar Singh [1892] 20 Cal. 254. On behalf of the appellant, reliance has been placed on the other hand upon the decision in Watson and Co. v. Sreekristo Bhowmick [1893] 21 Cal. 132 and Debendra Prosad Ghose v. Paresh Nath Mitter [1906] 4 C.L.J. 119. In our opinion the cases mentioned on behalf of the appellants are distinguishable. The appeals in Mohesh Chunder Chattopadhya v. Umata a Deby [1889] 16 Cal 638 and Rajani Kant Nag v. Jageshwar Singh [1892] 20 Cal. 254 arose out of suits instituted for recovery of cess only. There was no question in either case as to the amount of cess annually payable but there was a question as to the liability to pay cess, and it was ruled that the appeal was barred u/s 153 inasmuch as the decree which was assailed had not decided a question relating to the amount of cess annually payable by the tenant. On the other hand, the decisions in Watson and Co. v. Sreekristo Bhowmick [1893] 21 Cal. On the other hand, the decisions in Watson and Co. v. Sreekristo Bhowmick [1893] 21 Cal. 132 and Debendra Prosad Ghose v. Paresh Nath Matter [1906] 4 C.L.J. 119 were pronounced in suits instituted for the recovery of rent and cess. There was no question as to the amount of cess annually payable, but there was a question as to the liability to pay cesses. It is plain that the effect of the decision of the question of liability to pay cess would be to affect the amount of "rent" annually payable by the tenant, if the word 'rent' is interpreted to mean not only rent properly so called but also cesses recoverable as rent; see section 3 (5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and section 47 of the Cess Act. The appeals now before us arise out of suits instituted for the recovery of cesses only. Consequently the present appeals are governed, not by the decisions in Debendra Prosad Gosh v. Paresh Nath Mitter [1906] 4 C.L.J. 119 and Watson & Co. v. Sreekristo Bhowmick [1889] 16 Cal 638 but by the decision in Mahesh Chunder Chuttopadhya v. Umatara Deby [1893] 21 Cal. 132 and Rajani Kanta Nag v. Jageshwar Singh [1892] 20 Cal. 254. The decree under appeal in each of these cases has decided the question not of the amount of cesses annually payable but of the liability of the defendant to pay cess when the plaintiff has not published the notices contemplated by the Bengal Cess Act. We are consequently of opinion that the preliminary objection must prevail in each case and that the appeals should be dismissed, with costs where the respondent has entered appearance.