JUDGMENT Banerji, J. - The question in this ease is whether a previous decision operates as res judicata under the provisions of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff claims certain property, by virtue of a sale deed, dated 29th of July 1917. Before the institution of the present suit the defendant had brought a suit in the Revenue Court to eject the plaintiff from 5 plots out of the property comprised in the sale deed, on the allegation that the plaintiff was the tenant of the defendant. In that suit the plaintiff claimed proprietary title in respect of that property by virtue of the sale deed, which is the basis of the present claim in this suit. The Revenue Court, upon that-plea being raised, could have adopted one of two courses. It might have referred the; parties to the Civil Court, or it might have constituted itself a Civil Court and tried the question itself. It did not refer the parties to the Civil Court and must be deemed to have elected to try the question of title. Its decision was adverse to the present plaintiff, who was defendant in the previous suit, and the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the proprietary right set up by him. In the present suit the plaintiff claims not only the plots which were in dispute in the suit in the Revenue Court but also other plots. It has been held that the present claim is barred by reason of the decision in the previous suit. The decision in that suit must be deemed to be the decision of a Civil Court. It is true that the property in dispute in the previous suit did not comprise the whole of the property now in dispute but the question of the plaintiff's title to both descriptions of property is identical and must be deemed to have been decided in that suit. The decision negatived the title, and therefore the issue as to the title must be deemed to have been decided in the previous suit. As we have stated above the Court in the previous suit was by reason of the action taken by it equivalent to a Civil Court which should have tried the subsequent suit. The decision negatived the title, and therefore the issue as to the title must be deemed to have been decided in the previous suit. As we have stated above the Court in the previous suit was by reason of the action taken by it equivalent to a Civil Court which should have tried the subsequent suit. The title of the plaintiff was the matter in issue in the previous suit having been once decided against plaintiff, it cannot be raised and decided in this subsequent suit. In this view this appeal is not sustainable and is dismissed with costs.