1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the CPC against a decree passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act by the Munsif of Kunda, Partabgarn.
2. The opposite party filed a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act in the Court of the Munsif of Kunda, Partabgarh, on the allegation that he was in peaceful possession of two plots and was dispossessed forcibly by the defendants within six months of the institution of the suit.
3. The Munsif decreed the claim and the defendants have now come up in revision.
4. The only point which arises for determination in this application for revision is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Munsif could be instituted in the revenue Court and as such the jurisdiction of the Munsif was barred under the provisions of Section 242 of the U.P Tenancy Act. It is alleged on behalf of the applicants that the plaintiffs could have maintained a suit under Section 180 or Section 183 of the U.P Tenancy Act and as such the suit could not of instituted in the civil Court. A perusal of S. 180 shows that a person taking or retaining possession of a plot of land without the consent of the person entitled to admit him to occupy such plot Shall be liable to ejectment under S. 180 ‘on the suit of the person so entitled’. It would thus appear that a suit under S. 180 can be maintained only by a person who is the owner or the landlord of the land claimed. A suit under Section 183 of the U.P Tenancy Act can be maintained by a person holding tenancy rights in the land which is the subject of the suit. In the present case no averment was made by the plaintiffs about their own title to the land. It was simply a case on the basis of possession and no question of title was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs. Even on facts as were presented subsequently to the Court, it appears that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit under Section 180 or Section 183 of the U.P Tenancy Act. The admitted facts of the case were that the two plots in respect of which the plaintiffs had Sued for possession formed part of the tenancy khata of the defendants but happened to be in the possession of the plaintiffs for quite a long time. The plaintiffs never claimed any tenancy rights in these plots and did not sue for possession on the basis of any tenancy rights. Such a suit could not have been instituted under Section 183 of the Tenancy Act. Even, therefore, on facts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not be said to be barred.
5. It has been held by a Division Bench of, this Court in — ‘Ganga Din…(Defendant); v. Gokul Prasad…(Plaintiff).’, AIR 1950 All 407 (A) that if upon a reading of the plaint it is made out that the plaintiff claims a relief on the basis merely of his previous possession and dispossession by the defendant, the Suit is one which is cognizable by the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The present suit was based entirely on possession which had been disturbed by the defendants. The case was, therefore, clearly within the cognizance of the Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has cited a ruling, — ‘Beni Madho Singh…Plaintiff Applicant; v. Prag…Defendant Opposite Party.’, AIR 1949 All 510 (B). A perusal of the judgment in this reported case also leads to the conclusion that it is only that suit which is cognizable by a Revenue Court which is barred under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The ruling, therefore, does not support the point pressed on behalf of the applicants.
7. The application for revision is dismissed with costs.
B/H.G.P
8. Revision dismissed.