1. This is a reference under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, by the Collector of Agra. It appears that a suit was instituted by one of several co-sharers of certain occupancy holdings for profits in the Court of the Munsif, Agra, who returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court on the ground that the suit is one which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. The learned Munsif made a reference to Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act, (3 of 1926), besides Section 230 of the same Act. The defendant is not represented in this Court and it is not clear whether it was on his objection that the learned Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. We do not find anything in Section 99 which may be applicable to the circumstances of this case. Perhaps the learned Munsif thought that the suit was one by a co-sharer in an occupancy holding for compensation for wrongful dispossession by another co-sharer who is holding under the same landlord as the plaintiff. If the learned Munsif was influenced by this consideration, we think that he proceeded on a farfetched ground. Where one of several co-sharers in an occupancy holding or other tenure is solely in possession he cannot be considered to be in wrongful possession; nor can the co-sharers suing for profits be said to have been wrongfully dispossessed from the holding or tenure. Possession of one co-sharer is possession of all who should be deemed to be in constructive possession through the co-sharer who is in actual possession by cultivating the land or by receipt of rents from sub-tenants.
2. In our opinion, Section 230, Agra Tenancy Act, (3 of 1926), is decisive on the point. That section declares that suits and application of the nature specified in the fourth schedule shall be heard and determined by the Revenue Courts, and no Courts other than a Revenue Court shall, except by way of appeal or revision as provided in this Act, take cognizance of any such suit or application, or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which adequate relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. We are thus thrown back oh Schedule 4, which does not make any mention of a suit by a co-sharer of an occupancy holding against another co-sharer for profits as one which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. It follows that the jurisdiction is not ousted by anything in Section 230, or Schedule 4, Tenancy Act. As to whether the civil Court has jurisdiction there can be no doubt that under Section 9, Civil P.C., it has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature. It cannot be denied that a claim for profits by one co-sharer of an occupancy holding against another is a suit of a civil nature. This being so, the suit was in our opinion rightly instituted in the Court of the Munsif.
3. It appears that the plaint was subsequently filed in a Revenue Court which expressed the opinion that the suit was not cognizable by it, Accordingly the Collector made the present reference under Section 267. We take it that the plaint is still in the Revenue Court which shall return it to the plaintiff for presentation to the civil Court competent to try it. The reference is accordingly answered as above.