Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. I am unable to distinguish the present case from the case of Kundan Lal v. Parsadi A.I.R. 1924 All. 744. It is common ground that a suit for ejectment of the plaintiff-appellants from the plot in dispute Was brought by the defendants-respondents in the revenue Court on the allegation that the plot in dispute was' land held for agricultural purposes' and the plaintiff-appellants were tenants from year to year and were liable to ejectment under Section 58(a) of the Agra Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901). That suit was contested by the present plaintiffs on the ground that they had the right of the grove-holders in the plot in dispute and the plot in dispute not being held for agricultural purposes was not 'land' as defined by the Agra Tenancy Act and, as such, the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to eject the appellants from the plot in dispute. This contention of the present appellants, who were defendants in the suit filed in the revenue Court, was overruled, and the suit brought by the present defendants-respondents was decreed. The decree for ejectment of the plaintiffs passed by the revenue Courts was affirmed up to the Board of Revenue. Thereafter the plaintiffs brought the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the plot in dispute, and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the same. The plaintiffs' case was that the plot in dispute was a grove, and the revenue, Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for the ejectment of the plaintiffs.
2. One of the pleas urged in defence was that the judgment of the revenue Court operated as res judicata and was a bar to the present suit.
3. This contention was overruled by the learned Munsif who decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal by the defendants the lower appellate Court held that the judgment of the revenue Court bars the present suit and accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs being tenant grove-holders and not being tenants of land let or held for agricultural purposes the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for their ejectment, and the decree of the revenue Court was not a bar to the present suit, In support of this contention reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the cases of Habibullah v. Kalyan Das  12 A.L.J. 1080, Lala Sheo Prasad v. Babu Ram A.I.R. 1923 All. 168, Mukh Ram v. Chajju  17 A.L.J. 646.
5. The point that arises for consideration in the present case did not arise in the first two cases cited by the learned Counsel. These cases are only an authority for the proposition that land covered by a grove is not land held for agricultural purposes, and, as such, the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment of a grove-holder under Section 58 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The question whether a decree for ejectment passed by the revenue Court does or does not bar a subsequent civil suit, filed with a view to nullify the effect of the decree of the revenue Court was not considered in either of those two cases. In Mukhram's case certain unsuccessful plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment filed in the revenue Court brought a subsequent suit for ejectment of the defendants on the ground that the defendants were holding the land as a trespasser, and it was held that the decision of the revenue Court did not operate as res judicata, and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable, It was held in that case that the relationship of landlord and tenant did never exist between the parties to the suit and the defendant was in the position of a trespasser, and, as such, the civil suit was maintainable, notwithstanding the previous, decision of the revenue Court. In the present case it is nobody's case that the present plaintiffs are in possession of the plot in dispute as trespassers, In the suit for ejectment filed by the present respondents against the plaintiff-appellants, the revenue Court had jurisdiction to decide the question whether the plaintiffs were agricultural tenants or not, and, having decided that question in a suit that was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue Court, the trial of the same question by the civil Court is barred by the principle of res judicata: vide Balwant Singh v. Sarabjit : AIR1927All70 . The validity of the decree of a revenue Court in a suit, which that Court is alone competent to try, cannot depend upon findings recorded by the civil Court in a suit between the same parties relating to the same subject-matter instituted after the decision of the revenue Court. The mere fact, that the plot in dispute has now been found by the learned Munsif to be a grove, cannot nullify the decree of the revenue Court, which was based on a diametrically opposite finding
6. For the reasons given above I dismiss this appeal with costs.