A suit for recovery of possession of agricultural land, based solely on allegations of previous possession and dispossession by the defendant, is maintainable in the civil court under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, and is not barred by the jurisdiction of the revenue court under Sections 180, 183, and 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif North, Faizabad, decreeing the plaintiff-respondents suit, which was brought under Section 9, Specific Relief Act.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent alleged in the plaint that he was in possession of the plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint and had prepared them for cultivation when the defendant forcibly dispossessed him. In para. 6 of the plaint he mentioned that the land was tenancy land and that, therefore, he was paying court-fed on that basis. He did not mention that he was the tenant of the land or that he had any other title to it. The defence was that the defendant was the tenant of the plots in suit and that the civil Court bad no "jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was cognisable by the revenue Court alone under the provisions of Section 242 read with Section 180 or Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. The defendant further denied that he had dispossessed the plaintiff as alleged by him. The learned Munsif held on the facts that the plaintiff bad been dispossessed by the defendant within six months of the suit and that the suit as framed was cognisable by the civil court under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. He, therefore, decreed the Suit. The defendant has come up in revision to this Court against that order.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant had urged that in substance the suit was a suit by a tenant for possession of agricultural land and as such was cognisable by the revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under Section 242 read with Section 180 and 183 U. P. Tenancy Act. Learned counsel has further referred to the case decided by one of us reported in beni Madho Singh v. Prag, 1949 A. L. J. 24: (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 510), in support of his contention. He has also invited our attention to Another single Judge decision reported in Lal bahadur Singh v. Surajpal Singh, 1946 A. L. J. 201 : (A. I. R. (33) 1948 ALL. 486) in which, according to him, a correct view of the law was not taken.

( 4 ) A question of jurisdiction whether a suit is entertainable by the Court in which it is instituted or not has to be decided upon the allegations made in the plaint. Looking at the plaint in the present case, as already stated, the plaintiff did not allege any title to the land in dispute. He merely alleged his previous possession over the same and also alleged his dispossession by the defendant within six months. It is true that he did mention that the land in dispute was tenancy land but that was merely for the purposes of payment of court-fee and not to show that the plaintiff was himself the tenant of the land, It may be that be was in adverse possession of the land, the real tenant being somebody else. He had framed the suit under Section 9, Specific relief Act which is in these terms :

"if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be sat up in such suit. Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. "

It is clear that in a suit under Section 9 the only allegations that are relevant are those of a persons previous possession and his dispossession by the defendant. The title of the parties is not relevant and indeed it is specifically provided that the section does not bar any person from recovering possession of the property on the basis of his title. The result, therefore, of this provision in Section 9 is that even if the defendant has a better title than the plaintiff, he cannot resist the plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession if the plaintiff proves the allegations made by him.

( 5 ) THE present suit was clearly one under Section 9, Specifics Relief Act. But that does not answer the applicants objection. A suit may fall un