(1.) The plaintiff brought a suit in the Revenue Court to eject the defendant as his sub-tenant. The suit was fought out up to the court of the Commissioner and it was held that the defendant was not a sub-tenant, but a tenant-in-chief paying rent to the zamindar.
(2.) After failing in the Revenue Court, the plaintiff instituted the present suit in the Civil Court for setting aside the decree of the Revenue Court above-mentioned and for the possession of the land in dispute.
(3.) The defendant's contention was that he was the chief tenant and that such a suit did not lie and was barred by the rule of res judicata.