JUDGMENT Kidwai J. 1. The appellants and their predecessors are sub-settlement-holders of village Bharwa in the district of Gonda. The superior proprietor of the village is Bhaiya Chandra Bhan Dutt Ram whose estate is now in the charge of the Deputy Commissioner, Gonda. 2. The superior proprietor instituted a suit out of which, this appeal arises for arrears of rent for the years 1349 to 1352 F. He claimed rent for the first three years at the rate of list 236 per annum together with RS. 21/8 par annum as local rate. For the last year he claimed Rs. 264 as rent plus Rs. 27 as local rate. 3. The defence was that no malikana was payable by the sub settlement holders under the decree of the first settlement court which was given upon an agreement of compromise between the predecessors of the parties. It was, therefore, urged that the rent indicated in the plaint included the local rate which also was 10 per cent of the land revenue payable in respect of the village. 4. The trial court accepted the defence and held that the rent assessed by the Settlement Officer at the third settlement included the local rate. He accordingly passed a decree for the amount claimed by the superior proprietor as local rate. The superior proprietor went up in appeal and the learned Civil Judge of Gonda came to the conclusion that the settlement Officer did include 10 per cent of the malikana in the rent assessed by him upon the sub-settlement holders u/s 79 of the land Revenue Act. He said that it was a mistaken view of the Settlement Officer, but it was not open to him, setting as a civil court, to correct the mistake made by the Settlement Officer in the exercise of a jurisdiction possessed by him alone. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for the local rates claimed also. 5. The sub settlement holders have now come up in appeal to this Court and their learned Advocate has contended that the construction placed by the learned Civil Judge upon the order of the Settlement Officer at the third settlement is incorrect. He contends that when the Settlement Officer added 10 per cent to the land revenue in assessing the under proprietary rent, he did so in accordance with the terms of the decree which the sub-settlement-holders held. He contends that when the Settlement Officer added 10 per cent to the land revenue in assessing the under proprietary rent, he did so in accordance with the terms of the decree which the sub-settlement-holders held. The decree provided that the sub-settlement-holders should pay no malikana but should pay local rates. He, therefore, contends that 10 per cent added as for the local rates and not for the malikana. 6. Had the last portion of the order stood alone, this would have been a construction which was possible and which would be attractive in the sense that it will give effect to the previously existing rights of the parties held under the settlement court decree. In similar circumstances Madeley J, adopted this interpretation in his decision in Second Rent Appeal No. 105 of 1943 Bhaiya Chandra Bhan Dutt Rant v. Sheo Nath Lal. He however, said that that decision depends upon the interpretation of the entry in the settlement record. 7. In the present cape there are two things in the order of the Settlement Officer which have to be borne in mind and which support the interpretation placed upon that order by the lower appellate court. The first thing is that in an earlier part of the same order he states that the sub-settlement-holders are fairly well off and pay a nominal malikana." This indicates that the Settlement Officer at least considered that malikana was payable by the sub-settlement-holders. 8. Having regard to the decree of the first settlement court, this was a mistaken impression. Nevertheless it was an impression which the Settlement Officer had. When, therefore, he fixes what he calls sub-settlement rent and he fixes it at the land revenue plus 10 per cent. This 10 per cent can be nothing but malikana which Settlement Officer mistakingly thought was payable by the sub-settlement-Holders. 9. he second factor which leads to the same conclusion is that, if it is the duty of the Settlement Officer to assess local rates at all, it is his duty to assess them upon the superior proprietor. He has not done so in this case. With regard to the superior proprietor he has simply laid down what amount shall be payable as land revenue. It follows from that the Settlement Officer was not inclined to fix the local rates payable. He has not done so in this case. With regard to the superior proprietor he has simply laid down what amount shall be payable as land revenue. It follows from that the Settlement Officer was not inclined to fix the local rates payable. Thus the 10 per cent which he had added in determining what the rent of the sub-settlement holders should be was not in fact the local rates payable. That should have been added on to the land revenue payable by the superior proprietor and if so facto the sub-settlement holders would be liable to pay not only the land revenue but also the local rates. This is not the course which the Settlement Officer had adopted. Both these facts indicate that when he added 10 per cent to the land revenue payable by the sub-settlement holders, that 10 per cent was not the local rate but malikana. 10. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.