( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the petitioners in this revision petition. This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28-12-1989 passed by the Lower court on the preliminary issue, holding that the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to decide the suit. The suit, O. S. No. 100 of 1988 was filed in the district Munsif s Court at Mahaboobnagar by the respondent-plaintiff for perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land ad measuring ac. 15. 27 guntas in survey No. 544/a, Polepally village of Jedcherla mandal. The case of the plaintiff is that survey No. 544 originally comprised of Ac. 19-27 guntas which was owned by the plaintiff. Father of the first defendant was the protected tenant with respect to the entire land and when he defaulted in payment of rent, plaintiff initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar against the protected tenant for recovery of rent and also for restoration of possession. The protected-tenant, retaining only Ac. 4-00 of land out of the total extent of ac. 19-27 guntas in survey No. 544, wilfully surrendered his tenancy rights with respect to the remaining land, viz. , Ac. 15-27 guntas, and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff. Four acres of land retained by the protected-tenant was mutated in his name, and the remaining Ac. 15-27 guntas surrendered to the plaintiff, was given a separate survey number, viz. , survey No. 544/a. which is now the subject-matter of dispute in this revision petition. Alleging that the defendants, without any manner of right, are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by the plaintiff, she filed the present suit, praying for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule land. The defendants contested the same, claiming that they are in possession of the said land, being the legal heirs of the protected-tenants. After appropriate issues are framed by the lower court, the defendants filed an application in I. A. No. 11/1988 in the suit under order 14, Rule l (4) (b) of the Civil Procedure Code for framing an additional issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try it as a preliminary issue. The said application was allowed and the additional issue was framed on 19-7-1989, viz. , "whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit"? The lower court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the civil court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the subject-matter to be decided in the suit falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tahsildar and as per Section 99 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The respondent-plaintiff, however, contends that the subject-matter of the suit being only with respect to grant of an injunction based on the possession of the plaintiff, the civil court alone has got the jurisdiction, and not the Tenancy Court, to try the suit.

( 3 ) THE point, therefore, that falls for consideration in this revision petition is - whether the civil court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit?

( 4 ) IN order to determine the forum, the allegations in the plaint have to be locked into. A reading of the plaint will disclose that the plaintiff claims that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land, in her own right, subsequent to the surrender of the same by the erstwhile protected tenant. Incidentally, it is mentioned in the plaint that, the plaintiff has got exclusive possession with respect to the land subsequent to the surrender of the tenancy rights by the protected tenant. That, by itself, will not attract