Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs' allegations were that they were occupancy tenants of five plots; and that in a suit for rent in the Revenue Courts the defendants had set up a title in themselves as occupancy tenants and had thus forfeited the tenancy. This was in 1913 and related to plot No. 1350. The Revenue Court dismissed the suit. When the plaintiffs again sued the defendants in 1916 for arrears of rent of three plots, that suit was also dismissed on the same ground. The present suit was then brought in the Civil Court to eject the defendants as trespassers.
2. One of the pleas raised in defense was that such a suit did not lie in the Civil Courts. The parties are descended from a common ancestor,
3. The plaintiff's case was that one of the co-sharere, Durga, had transferred his share in the holding to them. The defendants also claimed title under Durga. The Revenue Court had held that Durga was not a co-sharer of the plaintiffs in the plots in dispute and, therefore, any transfer by Durga to them of his share in the holding would not be valid The First Court agreed with the Revenue Court in holding that Durga was not a co-sharer of the plaintiffs and hence he could not relinquish his rights to the plaintiffs. He also found that the plaintiffs were not occupancy tenants and dismiss. ed the suit. The lower Appellate Court came to the opposite conclusion and held that Durga was a co-sharer with the plaintiffs and that the transfer was valid Ha accordingly decreed the ejectment of the defendants.
4. The defendants come here in second appeal and the main ground taken was that the decision of the Revenue Court passed in 1916 that is, in the second of the suits for arrears of rent mentioned by me, was binding on the Civil Courts. This is the only point on which I heard arguments in this appeal and in my opinion, this point concludes the appeal. It has been held in the case of Narain Singh v. Gobind Ram 9 Ind. Cas. 1022 : 33. A. 523 : 8 A.L.J. 431, that a suit like this does not lie at all. I am in full agreement with the decision arrived at in that case and I am bound to follow it as it was a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. As would appear from the statement of facts I have given above, the suit was based on the grounds that the defendants had incurred forfeiture because of their denial of the plaintiffs' title in the Revenue Courts. This Is not one of the grounds on which a tenant can be ejected under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The suit, was bad in its inception. No suit like this would lie at all in any Court', Revenue or Civil.
5. It has been urged by the learned Vakil for the respondents that sections 196 and ) 97 cover the defect in the forum of the suit. These sections have no application to suits which do not lie at all but they only contemplate suits which might have been brought in one Court but have been by mistake or otherwise brought in another. A suit like the present one did not lie and the Courts below have erred in decreeing it.
6. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts.