1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the appellants for a declaration that they are occupancy tenants of certain land and that the respondents are trespassers. There was also a prayer for possession in cage the Court held that the appellants had lost possession.
2. It appears that the respondents, alleging themselves to be occupancy tenants of the land, sued in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the appellants alleging that they were the respondents' shikmi tenants. The appellants resisted that suit on the ground that they and not the respondents were occupancy tenants of the land. The Revenue Court found against the appellants and ejected them. The appellants then brought the present suit which has been dismissed on the ground that the matter decided by the Revenue Court was one within the exclusive jurisdiction of that Court and the decision could not be disturbed by the Civil Court. My own view is that the decisions of the Courts below are correct. But it was held, in Niranjan v. Gajadhar 5 A.L.J. 71; A.W.N. (1903) 45; 30 A. 133 that the question whether A. or B. is the tenant of certain land, is not a question of proprietary title within the meaning of Section 177 of the Agra Tenancy Act and in Jagarnath v. Ajudhya 10 A.L.J. 408; 17 Ind. Cas. 376 in an appeal under the Letters Patent against a decision by me that the question whether A. or B. is the tenant of certain land is not a matter which can be decided under Section 95 of the Act.
3. Upon the latter ruling by which I am bound, though there were other decisions by single Judges to the contrary, I must hold that the question whether the appellants or the respondents are the occupancy tenants of the land to which this suit relates is not one exclusively reserved for the Revenue Court but is a question cognizable by a Civil Court and, therefore, the present suit is maintainable. My attention has been drawn to a passage in the judgment of Banerji, J. in Jagarnath v. Ajudhya 10 A.L.J. 408; 17 Ind. Cas. 376 but that appears to be a re-assertion of the view taken by him in Chhitar Singh v. Rup Singh 3 A.L.J. 603; A.W.N. (1906) 247 which was disapproved in the case of Niranjan v. Gajadhar 5 A.L.J. 71; A.W.N. (1903) 45; 30 A. 133 cited above. The rulings of this Court lay down that the decision by a Revenue Court of a question not exclusively reserved for its cognizance and not being a question of proprietary right within the meaning of Section 199 or Section 201 is not binding upon a Civil Court. On the authorities, therefore, I hold that the present suit is maintainable. I allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to that Court for decision on the merits. Costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.