Judgment Ramaswami, J. 1. The question involved in this case is whether the Small Cause Court committed any error of law in refusing to return the plaint for being filed in proper Court having jurisdiction to determine the question of title. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit claiming rent of a house which he alleged the defendants had taken on monthly rent. The main ground of defence was that the plaintiff had no title and the defendants had not taken settlement of the house from him. The learned Munsif held that it was not open to the defendants to raise question of title since the doctrine of res judicata will operate. In 1946 the plaintiff had previously brought a title suit against the defendants for recovering house rent and for ejectment. In that suit the defendants appeared and filed written statement but on the date fixed for final hearing the defendants were absent and the suit was decreed ex parte. The defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge. In second appeal the decree was modified by the High Court. The claim for arrear of rent was granted but the plaintiff was not granted & decree for ejectment since the notice to quit was held to be invalid in law. The Small Cause Court held that the decision in the previous suit would operate as res judicata and it was not open to the defendants to agitate again the question of title. Accordingly, he refused to return the plaint under Sec.23, Small Cause Courts Act. 3. In support of this rule, Mr. Prem Lal contended that the Small Cause Court was erroneous to hold that the question of title was barred on the principle of res judicata. In my opinion, this argument is not correct. Learned counsel referred to Pardip Singh V/s. Ramsunder Singh, A. I. R. (36) 1949 Pat. 510: (30 P.L.T. 434) and contended that the question of title had been gone into only incidentally and collaterally in the previous suit and so the decision would not be res judicata. In my opinion, this argument is not correct. Learned counsel referred to Pardip Singh V/s. Ramsunder Singh, A. I. R. (36) 1949 Pat. 510: (30 P.L.T. 434) and contended that the question of title had been gone into only incidentally and collaterally in the previous suit and so the decision would not be res judicata. The principle is well settled that the decision in a rent suit is not res judicata on the question of title unless the question of title was expressly raised and was expressly decided between the parties and in each case it is necessary to examine carefully the decision in the rent suit before any opinion can be formed as to whether it operates as res judicata on the question of title or not. The difference will be apparent from two Privy Council decisions, viz., Run Bahadoor Singh V/s. Mt. Lucho Kuer, 12 I. A. 23: (11 Cal. 301 P. C) where it was held that the decision was not res judicata as the question of title had been gone into only incidentally and collaterally, and Radhamadhub Holdar V/s. Manohar Mookerji, 15 I. A. 87: (15 Cal.56 P. C.) where the question of title was directly decided in a rent suit and the decision was held to be res judicata. As explained in Gnanada Gobindo Choudhurs case, 43 C.L.J. 146 : (A. I. R. (13) 1926 Cal. 650). "the essence of the doctrine o( res judicata is that where a material issue has been tried and determined between the same parties in a proper suit and in a proper Court as to the status of one of them in relation to the other or as to the right or title claimed by one of them against the other, the same question cannot "be agitated by them again in another suit. In the case of suits for rent or other recurring liability the cause of action for suits for successive period are different. In the case of such suits, for the doctrine to apply, it will have to be shown that the question of right or liability not merely for the period in the previous suit but that for all times or once for all was directly and substantially in issue and was tried and determined. In the case of such suits, for the doctrine to apply, it will have to be shown that the question of right or liability not merely for the period in the previous suit but that for all times or once for all was directly and substantially in issue and was tried and determined. If a direct issue on the point was raised and decided, the decision would be res judicata in respect of any suit for subsequent period." Applying the principle in the present case I am of opinion that in the previous suit question of title was directly and expressly raised and decided between the parties and the decision will operate as res judicata. It should be noticed at the outset that the previous suit was not only for recovery of arrears of rent but also for ejectment of the defendants. In the judgment of the trial Court the following passage is material: "The suit is heard ex parte, Exhibit 1 is the patta dated 13-12-44 which proves the settlement of the aforesaid land with the plaintiffs. Exhibit 2 is the office copy of the notice and Ex. 3 is the postal receipt. P. W. 1 has proved that the plaintiffs made the hut and let it out to the defendants at a monthly rental of Rs. 5." In the course of the appellate judgment the learned District Judge states: "To substantiate their story of settlement of the disputed hut with defendants on monthly rental of Rs. 5 and to show that the defendant did not pay rent for the disputed hut for eleven months, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff 2 and got the original patta (Ex. 1) by which the land on which the disputed house stands was settled with plaintiffs by the previous owner Parmeswar Pd. Choudhary, duly proved. The deposing plaintiff has stated on oath that after taking settlement of the land on which the disputed hut stands, they constructed the disputed hut on it, and then let it out to the defendants on a monthly rental of Rs. 5 on the 1st Fagun, 1352 Fs. This deposing plaintiff has further stated on oath that after paying rent for one month, the defendants stopped payment of rent from Chait, 1352 Fs. 5 on the 1st Fagun, 1352 Fs. This deposing plaintiff has further stated on oath that after paying rent for one month, the defendants stopped payment of rent from Chait, 1352 Fs. The plaintiffs also got the notice of eviction which they sent to the defendants by registered post before the filing of this suit, duly proved, and there being no rebutting evidence to falsify the plaintiffs claim the learned Munsif, I think, was quite justified in decreeing the plaintiffs suit on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and hence I hold accordingly and decide this point too against the appellant." 4. In second appeal the High Court affirmed the decree for rent but set aside the decree for ejectment since there was no valid notice to quit. 5. It is manifest that the question of title was directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit and the learned Munsif was, in my opinion, correct in holding that the decision would operate as res judicata in the present suit. The learned Munsif, therefore, committed no error of law in declining to return the plaint under Sec.23, Small Cause Courts Act. 6. For these reasons I would dismiss this application with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohar.