JUDGMENT Jack, J. - This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of title to the house described in the plaint and for recovery of khas possession and mesne profits. The suit was decreed in the Courts below as to declaration of title and khas possession but was dismissed as regards mesne profits. The history of the case in short is as follows: On the 9th August, 1921, the Plaintiffs got a decree by compromise against the Defendants in ejectment under which the Defendants undertook to vacate the house in January, 1922. He failed to vacate the premises and in the year 1929 the Plaintiffs brought a suit against him for rent at an enhanced rate of Rs. 3 per month on account of an alleged fresh agreement. This suit was dismissed in the Small Causes Court and the finding was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. Then there was a suit for damages for use and occupation in 1931 which was dismissed. On the 20th July, 1933, the present suit was brought for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The decision of this appeal depends upon the question whether the decision of the suit for rent of 1929 is a bar to the present application for possession. The Defendant does not dispute the Plaintiff's title, as indeed he cannot dispute, having acknowledged their title in 1921 and the suit being within 12 years from that date. The present suit is based on an alleged settlement subsequent to the decree of ejectment and it is contended that as between the parties that matter was decided by the decision of the Small Causes Court suit of 1929 that there had been no fresh settlement. The Courts below had decided that the decision by Small Causes Court did not constitute res judicata and it was open to the Court in the present suit to decide the question of fresh settlement. It is admitted that under sec. 11 of the CPC the decision of the Court of Small Causes would not bar the decision in the present case, but it is contended that sec. 11 is not exhaustive and that this matter having been decided between the parties it should be regarded as res judicata in this case. It is admitted that under sec. 11 of the CPC the decision of the Court of Small Causes would not bar the decision in the present case, but it is contended that sec. 11 is not exhaustive and that this matter having been decided between the parties it should be regarded as res judicata in this case. In support of this position some rulings of the Privy Council have been cited, but they refer either to execution proceedings, or to land acquisition, probate or income tax cases. I think that there can be no doubt that the decision of a Small Causes Court in a rent suit cannot possibly be allowed to bar a decision in a regular title suit in a case which the Small Causes Court is not competent to decide. The findings of the Courts below in this suit really decide the appeal, it having been decided that there was a fresh settlement that the Defendant having refused to acknowledge that he is a tenant under the Plaintiffs and pay the rent due, the Plaintiffs are entitled to get khas possession. I think they should also have got a decree for rent or mesne profits but there has been no cross-appeal on this point. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.