1. In my opinion the snit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed. The suit was to recover possession of a portion of a house said to stand on a plot, No. 52/1, in the village of Ninawa.
2. A reference to paragraph 4 of the plaint shows the title on which the plaintiffs were suing. The allegation was that in the course of a partition carried out by a Revenue Court and whish took effect from the 1st of July 1918, a house standing on old plot No. 52 had been divided between the parties. One portion of the house was allotted to the plaintiffs as No. 52/1 and the rest of the house was allotted to the other party as standing on No. 52/2. The case for the plaintiffs was that subsequent to the decision of the partition Court the defendants had dispossessed them.
3. It appears to me to be absolutely clear that a Revenue Court making a partition under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Land Revenue Act has no jurisdiction to make a division of homes. That has been laid down in a Bench decision of this Court reported as Ashiq Husain v. Muhammad Jan A. W. N. (1900) 116 : 22 A. 329 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N. S.) 1251. A similar ruling has been given in Oudh [see Iqbal Narain v. Suraj Narain 27 Ind. Cas. 543 : 18 O. C. 80 : 2 O. L. J. 51.] The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred me to a Fall Bench ruling of this Court reported as Muhammad Sadiq v. Laute Ram 23 A. 291; A. W. N. (1901) 86 (F. B.). in which it was laid down that a Revenue Court making a partition trader the Land Revenue Act has jurisdiction to make a division of trees growing upon land. It is argued by analogy, that the same powers ought to be deemed to exist in the Revenue Court with respect to houses. In the Fall Bench decision it was very clearly pointed out that with regard to buildings there were special provisions contained in the Chapter relating to partition and a reference to the present Land Revenue Act also shows that those provisions in the earlier Act have been repeated. They are to be found in Section 118 of the Act. No special provision is made with regard to the division of trees and consequently it was held by the Full Bench that the Revenue Court having authority to divide lands had also jurisdiction to divide the trees standing upon it. I must take it, therefore, that the law is definitely settled and that consequently the plaintiffs who found their case upon the partition in order to put forward the title which they wished to vindicate, are out of Court. The order of the partition Court could not give them a title to the premises in dispute. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.