Bimalendra Nath Maitra, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs' case is that the disputed property was held by defendant no. 1 as a thika tenant. On the 20th December, 1957, the latter sold the same to one Kali Bala. By a registered kobala dated 14th November, 1962, the plaintiffs purchased the property from Kali Bala. Defendant No. 1 also joined in that transaction as a consenting party. On that date, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement that the latter would possess the property as a licensee for three years and a deed of reconveyance would be executed by the plaintiffs if the consideration of Rs. 5000/- was paid within three years. Defendant no. 1 did not exercise such option within three years. The plaintiffs revoked the license and instituted the suit for eviction.
(2.) Defendant no. 1 resisted the claim on the ground that no sale was made but the transaction constituted a loan in substance.
(3.) The learned Munsif stated that the Misc. Case 76 of 1958 was filed by defendant no. 1 against Kali Bala under Section 36 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act on the ground that the former took a loan of Rs. 3500/- from the latter. That application was rejected. After that decision the present question was barred by the principles of res judicata He stated that the defendant no. 1 was the plaintiffs licensee. The suit was therefore, decreed. An appeal was preferred by defendant no. 1 and that too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the same ground. Hence the present appeal.;