JUDGMENT Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Revenue Court in the year 1909 or 1910, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were her tenants and she sought to eject them for non-payment of rent. In that case the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had given them the property. The Assistant Collector held that the story told by the defendants was correct, namely, that the plaintiff having no issue of her own brought them from their village and established them on the property promising that they should have the property now in suit. Having found that these were the true facts he concludes by saying "under these circumstances I find the defendants are rent-free-holders of the land in suit which was given to them in gift by the plaintiff." The plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner (not to the District Judge). The Commissioner held in effect exactly the same as the Assistant Collector had held. Meanwhile, a second suit had been brought by the plaintiff for rent, also in the Revenue Court. This suit has been dismissed as being a matter which was already decided in the suit to which we have already referred. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit in the Civil Court. The court below has dismissed her suit on the ground that the previous proceeding; bar the suit.
2. It seems to us that the decision of the court below was correct. The plea of the defendants in the first mentioned suit was clearly a plea that they were the proprietors. Two courses were open to the Revenue Court. It could decide the question itself, in which case the appeal lay to the District Judge, or it might refer the parties to the Civil Court. From the nature of the issue framed and the finding of the court it seems to us that we must presume that the Revenue Court adopted the first course. It was, therefore the plaintiff's duty to have appealed to the District Judge if she was dissatisfied with the decision. She did not do so, and therefore the decision of the Revenue Courts final and has the same effect as the decision of the Civil Court. See Shahzade Singh v. Muhammad Mehdi Ali Khan (1909) I.L.R. 32 All. 8, and Bed Saran Kunwar v. Bhagat Deo (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 453 also Beni Pande v. Raja Kausal Kishore Prasad Mal Bahadur (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 160.
3. If we were to hold that the decision by the Assistant Collector and Commissioner was that the defendants were rent-free grantees, then the plaintiff's remedy would be under the Tenancy Act to have the rent-free grant resumed. We dismiss the appeal with costs.