Real rent can still be proved where an earlier settlement order did not decide it and was tainted by fraud.

A settlement order under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act did not bar inquiry into the real rent in a later suit because the earlier proceeding decided only the rate of enhancement and did not adjudicate the existing rent of the holding. Where the true rent had not been raised or determined, the plaintiffs could prove and recover the rent at the correct rate. The record also showed that the earlier khatian entry and the proceedings founded on it were procured by fraud and collusion, and such an order could be impeached in the same suit in which it was relied on as a bar. The objection based on Section 107 therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order made in settlement proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act barred the plaintiffs from proving and recovering the real rent in a subsequent suit, and whether such order could be impeached in the same suit on the ground of fraud and collusion.

Analysis: The order under Section 105 decided only the rate of enhancement and did not determine the then existing rent of the holding. Since the question of the real rent had not been raised or adjudicated in those proceedings, the order did not preclude inquiry into the correct rent in the present suit. The evidence accepted by both courts established that the recorded rent in the khatian was incorrect. In addition, the earlier entry and the proceedings based upon it were found to have been brought about by collusion and fraud. A decree or order procured by such fraud is not immune from challenge in the very suit in which it is relied upon as a bar.

Conclusion: The settlement order did not stand in the way of the plaintiffs' claim for rent at the proved real rate, and the objection based on Section 107 of the Bengal Tenancy Act failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement order does not bar a subsequent determination of the real rent where that question was neither raised nor decided, and an order obtained by fraud or collusion may be collaterally impeached in the same proceeding in which it is invoked.

---