1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover from the defendants rent due under a mokarrari grant for the years 1968 to 1970 inclusive. It appears that many years ago a tenure was granted to one Bandhan Singh and others in perpetuity and that these persons created a mokarrari grant in favour of the defendants subject to a malikana rent. Bandhan Singh and others transferred their right, title and interest in this grant to the present plaintiff. The present plaintiff is the assignee of Bandhan and others and claims to recover the mokarrari rent due from the defendants. The case put forward by the defendants to resist the claim is that the plaintiff being a tenure-holder should have registered his transfer in accordance with section 11 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act of 1908. The assignment that was made to the plaintiff was made in 1903 since which time he has not registered his transfer in the landlord's sherista as he was bound to do. Section 11 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act appeal's to be mandatory in its terms; and if not observed the landlord is not entitled to recover from the tenants rent due between the date of the transfer and the date of the registration. Admittedly the plaintiff has not registered the transfer and the defendants contend that he is, therefore, estopped by the provisions of section 11 from maintaining the present suit. We agree with the learned Judicial Commissioner that if the point as to whether the plaintiff was a tenure-holder or not had been res integra we would have no hesitation in saying that he was; and that he was, therefore, incompetent to recover from the defendants upon the ground put forward by the defendants. But it appears that in this case there is another important factor. In the year 1911, this plaintiff brought a suit against the present defendants claiming rent for certain years and the point was expressly taken by the defendants in that suit that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit by reason of the non-registration of his transfer. The learned Munsif who tried that case decided that the plaintiff was not a tenure-holder but merely an assignee of the rent due under the mokarrari and that being merely such an assignee, he was not bound to register his assignment under section 11 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

2. We think that the learned Munsif who decided that case misunderstood the legal effect and meaning of the transfer made to the plaintiff in the year 1903. However, we are not concerned with that now because from that decision no appeal was preferred. The parties to that suit were the same as the parties to the present suit, and the issue as to the right of the plaintiff to maintain his claim for rent was raised then as now and the case was determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Munsif may have been wrong as to the interpretation which he put upon the deed of transfer but that does not alter the fact that there has been a decision by a Court of competent jurisdiction upon a point directly and substantially in issue now between the parties. The learned Judicial Commissioner rightly felt himself bound by the previous decision in Suit No. 31 of 1911, and he held that that decision operated as res judicata between the parties to this suit.

3. Mr. Fakhruddin says that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to this case inasmuch as the Local Government did not under section 265 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act apply the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to this particular class of cases. That may be but we think that the decision in the former suit did operate as res judicata as between the parties to the present suit. The matter we think is concluded by the authority of the case reported as Malkarjun v. Narhari 25 B. 337 at p. 347 : 5 C.W.N. 10 : 2 Bom. L.R. 927 : 27 I.A. 216 : 10 M.L.J. 368 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 739. Their Lordships of the Privy Council, dealing with the question of jurisdiction of the Court say, "It made a sad mistake, it is true, but a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right. If it decides wrong, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right; and if that course is not taken the decision, however wrong, cannot be disturbed." To the like effect is the case reported as Gopi Nath Chobey v. Bhugwat Pershad 10 C. 697 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 468.

4. Mr. Fakhruddin has referred us to a Full Bench ruling reported as Dwarkanath Roy v. Ram Chand Aich 26 C. 428 : 3 C.W.N. 266 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 876. That case is obviously distinguishable from the facts of the present case; as also that reported as Nitya Nunda Sarkar v. Ram Narain Das 6 C.W.N. 66. Therefore we must hold that in the present case the decree granted in Suit No. 31 of 1911 operates as res judicata as between the parties to the present suit and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to succeed in this suit for recovery of rent even though he has not got his name registered. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

5. The plaintiff having been guilty of not having his transfer duly registered in accordance with the requirements of the law is not entitled to any consideration. He has, however, promised to make amends by having his transfer registered within the space of one month from this date. The plaintiff will get no costs in this Court, in the lower Appellate Court and in the Munsif's Court.