1. The plaintiffs sued in the civil Court for the ejectment of the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs were cosharers and sir-holders and entitled to possession of the land and the defendants had wrongfully ejected the plaintiffs sub-tenants and taken illegal possession. There was a sub-tenant Mt. Babuna. The defendant sued for her ejectment in the revenue Court. Her defence was that as she was the sub-tenant of the plaintiffs and paid rent to them the plaintiffs were brought on the record as defendants. The revenue Court, however, held that Mt. Babuna was the sub-tenant of the defendants and granted' to the defendants a decree for the ejectment of Mt. Babuna. In pursuance of that decree the defendants were in possession at the date of the institution of the present civil suit. It is argued here that the present civil suit is in effect an attempt to reverse the decision of the revenue Court in a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction. The Full Bench ruling of Balwant Singh v. Sarabjit : AIR1927All70 is quoted. The matter, however, is provided for by statute. Under Section 198, Tenancy Act, it was not within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court to make the plaintiffs parties to the revenue suit. It is enacted there that when, in any suit against a tenant under this Act, the defendant pleads that the relation of land holder and tenant does not exist between the plaintiff and himself on the ground that he actually and in good faith pays the rent of his holding to some third parson, the question of such payment of the rent to such third person shall be inquired into, and if the question is decided in favour of the defendant, the suit shall be dismissed. Clause (2) of that section preserves the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the right of any person entitled to the rent of the holding to establish his title by a suit in the civil Court. The present is just such a case. The mistake of the revenue Court in making the plaintiffs parties to the revenue suit cannot invest that Court with jurisdiction to try the question of proprietorship between the parties to the present suit. The case in the revenue Court was not under Section 199, where the defendants may have pleaded proprietary title in denial of tenancy. Mt. Babuna did not plead proprietary title in herself. From the decision of the revenue Court the plaintiffs to the present suit went in appeal to the District Judge, but the District Judge rightly held that no appeal lay and the plaintiff's proper remedy was a suit in the civil Court as laid down by Cl, (2), Section 198, Tenancy Act.
2. The ruling quoted by the appellant's learned Counsel is not in point for a second reason also. In that case the question of tenancy which was decided by the revenue Court was again brought into issue in the civil Court. The relations between the parties had not changed from what they were in the revenue Court. In the present case the situation is altered. The sub-tenant with respect to whom the revenue Court had exclusive jurisdiction has disappeared and the defendants have taken possession as proprietors. With the disappearance of the sub-tenant the question as to whose sub-tenant she was no longer exists. The point of law raised on behalf of the defendant appellants is not tenable. The rest is a decision of fact. This appeal is dismissed with costs.