Abdul Raoof, J.
1. Bohra Panna Lal the plaintiff in this case brought this suit against Baldeva Teli upon the following allegations: In paragraph 1 of the plaint he stated that the plaintiff was a zemindar co-sharer and also a lambardar in Mauza Maholi Shamshergunj, Tahsil Bhagaon district Mainpuri. In paragraph 2 of the plaint he stated that in accordance with the condition and custom entered in the Wazib-ul-arz, the defendant was liable to give and deliver to the plaintiff two chataks of oil daily, that is to say, 3 1/4 seers every month. In paragraph 3 he stated that the defendant had not complied with the condition in the Wajib-ul-urz for the period therein stated and he, therefore, claimed Rs. 49 8-0 as the price of the oil which had not been delivered to him by the defendant. The suit was filed on the 6th of August 1917. In support of his claim the plaintiff filed a copy of an extract from the Wajib-ul-arz in which the custom relied upon was entered. The Wajib-ul-arz is dated the 10th of September 1872, and its Chapter IV, Clause 6 is described in these words: - 'Fusil chaharam dofa shashum roqum to malkan ko sahinan ghair mazaran se leni jayiz hai.' Below this the entry is made in these words: Teliyan se tel muwafiq jalane rozmarra chaupal our dewali men be wazan ek ser.' The suit was brought on the basis of this entry in the Wajib-ul-arz and it was decreed ex parte. The present application for revision has been filed against the decree and judgment of the Court below. The ground taken before me is that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and reliance is placed upon Article 13 of Schedule II attached to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The Article runs thus: 'A suit to enforce payment of the allowance or fees respectively called malikana and hakk or of cesses or other dues when the cesses or dues are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property or in an hereditary office or in a shrine or other religious institution.' The present suit is certainly for dues which are claimed by the plaintiff as payable to him by reason of his interest in immoveable property. The plea taken in revision is a valid plea and, I think, it was clearly contemplated to exclude such a suit from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. I hold that the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. I allow the application, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure I direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. The applicant will be entitled to his costs and I order accordingly.