1. This is an appeal from an order by the Court below directing that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court. The plaintiff sued for damages upon the allegation that the defendant had cut down a tree in his grove. The defendant claimed to be the landholder and argued that the suit was really one for dispossession, that an adequate relief could be given by the Revenue Court, and that therefore the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction. The defendant is admittedly not recorded as a co-sharer. His case was that the property had been acquired by his father on behalf of a joint Hindu family of which he and his father were members. In our judgment even if this is so, it is not a fact which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The defendant personally is not a landholder. Even on his own allegation, if his claim that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family is justified, then it is the joint Hindu family and not individual members thereof which is the landholder. The defendant could not claim that the suit should lie in the Revenue Court unless he could show that the tree had been cut down not by him individually but by the joint Hindu family.
2. The other point is that there was, in our opinion, no dispossession which would give rise to a cause of action in the Revenue Court. What the plaintiff says is only this, that the defendant had cut down a tree belonging to him. The mere cutting down of the tree would not amount to a dispossession of the plaintiff from the grove. The result is that we are unable to support the finding of the lower Appellate Court. We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and direct that the lower Appellate Court should dispose of the appeal upon its merits. Costs in this Court will be borne by the respondent.