Restitution under a decree requires reversal or supersession; refund claims fail where the operative decree remains valid.

Money paid under a decree cannot be recovered in a fresh suit while that decree remains subsisting and valid; restitution arises only if the decree has been reversed or superseded. The earlier Privy Council decision did not overturn the decrees executed against the tenants, but only held that the High Court lacked power to set aside the subordinate courts' decisions in the circumstances then before it, so the tenants' refund claims failed. As to the landlord's later rent suits for subsequent faslis, the decrees fixing rent at an appropriate rate were affirmed because no challenge was pressed to the quantum and no further inquiry was required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether amounts paid under decrees executed while the earlier decree remained in force could be recovered back after the prior appellate decision; (ii) whether the decrees in the landlord's later rent suits for subsequent faslis should be affirmed.

Issue (i): Whether amounts paid under decrees executed while the earlier decree remained in force could be recovered back after the prior appellate decision.

Analysis: Money recovered under a decree cannot be reclaimed in a fresh suit while that decree remains subsisting and valid. The right to restitution arises only when the decree under which payment was made has been reversed or superseded. The earlier decision of the Privy Council did not reverse or supersede the decrees executed against the tenants, but only held that the High Court had no power to overturn the decisions of the subordinate courts in the circumstances then before it. The case therefore did not satisfy the condition necessary to support a claim for refund.

Conclusion: The tenants were not entitled to recover the excess rent paid, and their refund suits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the decrees in the landlord's later rent suits for subsequent faslis should be affirmed.

Analysis: The later rent suits related to subsequent years and were decided by decrees fixing the rent at a suitable rate. No challenge was pressed before the Board to the quantum fixed by those decrees, and there was no need to remit the matters for further inquiry.

Conclusion: The decrees in the landlord's later rent suits were affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the refund claims were rejected, and the decrees in the landlord's later rent suits stood confirmed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Restitution of money paid under a decree is available only when the decree has been reversed or superseded; a mere appellate ruling that does not overturn the operative decrees does not by itself create a right to recover the money paid under them.

---