JUDGMENT Lindsay, J. - In our opinion this appeal ought to be allowed. We think that the decision of the Court below that the present claim was barred by res-judicata is erroneous. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit and he brought this suit for a declaration of his title to a certain sum of money which was held in deposit under an order made by a Magistrate of the first class. 3. It appears that in the later part of the year 1919, a dispute arose between the present plaintiff and the defendant regarding some land, on which sugar-cane had been sown. Proceedings were taken under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crop was attached and sold by the order of the Magistrate, and the money was thereafter ordered to be kept in deposit. 4. The plaintiff says that he is the man who sowed this crop, and is, therefore, entitled to the sale-proceeds. The case for the defendant, on the other hand, was that he was the tenant of the land; that he sowed the crops, and that he had a title to the money. 5. The Court of first instance has found that the crop in question was sowed and raised by the plaintiff, but it was of opinion that because there had been a decision by the Rent Court regarding the question of tenancy, it was not possible to give the plaintiff relief inasmuch as it had been held in the proceedings referred to that the tenant of the land was the defendant Jaggu and not the plaintiff Tota. 6. In order to explain this matter it is necessary to refer to the litigation in the Rent Court. A suit for arrears of rent was brought by the zemindar for the years 1325, 1326 and 1327 Fasli. This suit was brought against, both Tota and Jaggu, the allegation of the landlord being that he was not sure which of these defendants was his tenant. Both defendants claimed to be tenants of the holding. In that suit it was decided that Tota had been the tenant of the holding up to the end of the year 1326 Fasli, corresponding with the 1st of July, 1919, while Jaggu was held to have become the tenant of the holding from the beginning of 1327 Fasli. Both defendants claimed to be tenants of the holding. In that suit it was decided that Tota had been the tenant of the holding up to the end of the year 1326 Fasli, corresponding with the 1st of July, 1919, while Jaggu was held to have become the tenant of the holding from the beginning of 1327 Fasli. The result of this was that the zemindar got a decree against Tota for the arrears of rent for 1325 Fasli, and for the arrears of rent for 1327 Fasli against Jaggu. That decision of the Rent Court was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge. 7. It is on the strength of this decision that both the Courts below have not held that the plaintiff cannot succeed in this claim. The Courts have taken the view that because it was held in the proceedings in the Rent Court that Jaggu was the tenant of this land for the year 1327, it is impossible now for Tota to put forward the claim that he is entitled to the sale proceeds of this crop, which grew curing the year 1327 Fasli. In the first place, we are not disposed to hold that the question as to who sowed this sugar cane crop and raised it was a matter, which was substantially in issue in the suit which was filed in the Revenue Court, and, in any case, it is clear to us that the decision of the Rent Court to the effect that Jaggu was the tenant of this, land and was liable for the rent of the year 1327 Fasli, would not decide the question of the title to the sale-proceeds of the sugar-cane crop. This is apparent, if it is remembered, that sugar-cane is a crop which is sown in the month of March or April, and is not finally gathered until late in November or the beginning of December. 8. This is apparent, if it is remembered, that sugar-cane is a crop which is sown in the month of March or April, and is not finally gathered until late in November or the beginning of December. 8. Obviously, therefore, this sugarcane crop, which was standing on this land in November, 1919, and was sold at or about that time, must have been sown early in the year, that is to say, about the month of March or April 1919, and the judgment of the Rent Court on this point is clear, namely, that at the time when the crop was sown Tota was still the tenant; of the holding We have already mentioned that it was held in the rent suit that Tota was the tenant of the land up till, at any rate, the 1st of July, 1919. There can, we think be no doubt that Tota sowed this crop and he must have tended it until it was well advanced, and, in the circumstances, we hold that he is entitled to recover this money. 9. We are clearly of opinion that the decision in the suit for arrears of rent does not constitute resjudicata for the purpose of barring the present claim. 10. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and direct that the plaintiffs claim be decreed with Costs in all three Courts.