1. The lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to touch this matter. Formerly there was a khata-khewat No. 4 belonging to Muhammad Ali and Mt. Sajidunnissa. The plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of Muhammad Ali and the defendants of Sajidunnissa, They owned 83 bighas and odd in equal shares and paid revenue in equal shares. On 10th April 1911 Muhammad Ali executed two deeds of gift granting 4 bighas 19 biswas to his wife free of revenue and the rest of his property to his daughters making them liable to pay the entire half revenue. In 1320 fasli Government revenue officials distributed the revenue 4 bighas 19 biswas was separated as khata No. 5 and assessed to revenue disregarding the direction of Muhammad Ali in his gift to his wife that the property shall be hold by her free of revenue. The rest of the property was kept in khata No. 4 and the revenue was distributed half and half, half payable by Muhammad Ali's daughters and half by the defendants, the sons of Mt. Sajidunnissa. It may be imagined that the burden of Muhammad Ali's share increased because instead of half of a certain revenue his successors-in-interest had to pay a certain portion for khata No. 5 and half of the balance. The plaintiffs were certainly aggrieved, but their grievance could not be remedied by the civil Court. The present suit was brought for a declaration that khata No. 5 was part of khata No. 4 and that the defendants were liable to pay half the revenue of the total of the two khatas.
2. This practically means that while Government made Mt. Agani, widow of Muhammad Ali, liable to pay the revenue of khata No. 5 the plaintiffs desired that the defendants should also be made liable to pay half portion of that revenue. Such a prayer violates several of the provisions of Section 233, Land Revenue Act, against the jurisdiction of the civil Court. First of all the civil Court is desired to hold that 4 bighas 9 biswas is not liable to pay revenue separately but is liable to pay revenue jointly with khata No. 5. This prayer conflicts with the prohibition contained in Section 233(c), Land Revenue Act, against the civil Court discussing the liability of any land to be assessed with a payment of revenue. The next prayer is that the defendants should also pay part of the revenue of khata No. 5 by combining the revenue of khatas Nos. 4 and 5. This attacks the validity of an engagement with Government by the holder of khata No 5 to pay revenue and also brings into question the amount of revenue assessed and distributed between khatas Nos. 4 and 5. The plaintiffs cannot obtain redress from the civil Court. I set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court dated 17th January 1929 and restore the order of the trial Court dated 26th May 1928. The defendants shall receive costs throughout.