1. The plaintiff in the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, prayed for a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to any portion of a piece of land entered as holding No. 3 in the khewat of a village and also to have two decrees of the Revenue Courts, dated respectively the 19th of June 1905 and the 1st of September 1905, set aside and declared void, and for an order that the defendant No. 1 should be ordered to refund to the plaintiff two sums of money paid to him under and by virtue of the said decrees of the Revenue Court.
2. The Court of first instance passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the declaration as to title asked for but dismissed his claim in other respects.
3. Upon appeal the lower appellate Court gave a decree to the plaintiff in the terms of his claim.
4. This second appeal has been preferred and it is contended before us that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to set aside decrees passed by the Revenue Courts under the powers conferred on them by the Agra Tenancy Act. It appears to us that this contention is well-founded. If we were to entertain suits to set aside decrees of the Revenue Courts, we should be bringing1 the Civil Courts into direct antagonism with the Revenue Courts. In certain matters the Agra Tenancy Act has provided that the Revenue Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction and it is not within the power of Civil Courts to interfere with the decrees of the Revenue Courts which have been passed in matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. This was so held by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, in the unreported case of Keshab Deo v. Bahori S.A. No. 883 of 1905, decided on the 30th of November 1906. The facts of that case were similar to those before us now and in the judgment we find the following passage: 'In our opinion this suit has been misconceived. The plaintiff asked the Civil Court to set aside a decree of the Revenue Court in a matter as to which the Revenue Court had exclusive jurisdiction. We are of opinion that such a suit could not be entertained by the Civil Court.' We would also refer to the case of Kishen Sahai v. Bakhtawar Singh 20 A. 237. We, therefore, allow this appeal. We set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in this Court and also in the lower appellate Court.