( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs application in revision arising out of a suit for the issue of a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession over the plots specified in the plaint.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif West Allahabad, on the allegations that the plaintiffs were zamindars of the land in suit, which was their sir and khudkasht, that the defendants had no manner of right in this land, but they wrongly deposited 10 times the rent and sought to obtain bhumidari rights under the provisions of the U. P. Tenants Acquisition of privileges Act, and that the defendants were also trying to enter into possession of the land. The actual relief claimed in the plaint was that, on proof of the plaintiffs possession over the land as their sir and khudkasht, a permanent injunction be issued to the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the land in suit. One of the defences taken to the suit was that it was not cognizable by the civil Court and was exclusively triable by the revenue Courts. There were some other defences also, but it is not necessary to mention them for the purposes of this revision. The learned Munsif tried the issue of jurisdiction only, namely, issue No. 3, and came to the conclusion that the suit was not entertainable by him, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the revenue Court. The plaintiffs went up in appeal, and the lower appellate Court agreed with the decision of the learned Munsif on this point and dismissed the appeal.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs-applicants has strenuously urged before us that the suit was cognizable by the civil Court, inasmuch as the relief that was claimed in the suit was a relief of a permanent injunction which could not be granted by a revenue Court. He has further argued that he has nowhere admitted in the plaint that the defendants are tenants, and" all that he has stated is that they are attempting to obtain possession over the land, and, with that object in view, they deposited certain amounts in the Tahsil with a view to get chumidhari certificates; and that the plaintiffs had taken steps in the revenue Courts for the cancellation of these certificates. We were informed that, after the institution of the suit, some of the certificates have actually been cancelled.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties has tried to support the judgments of the Courts below and his submission is that, from the allegations in the plaint itself, it is obvious that the defendants were claiming to be tenants of the land in suit, and the plaintiffs knew of this claim of the defendants before the institution of the present suit.

( 5 ) AS the above facts would show, the question, which arises, for determination in this revision is whether a plaint containing such averments is entertainable by the civil Courts or not. This question arises in numerous cases, and is assuming greater importance now because the tendency on behalf of the plaintiffs is to avoid the revenue Courts and obtain a decision from the civil court. There is nothing improper in this and their preference for the civil Courts is understandable. But the Courts have to follow the law, as it" stands, and give full effect to it.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding to discuss the different cases that have been brought to our notice in the course of arguments, we may first refer to the statutory provisions bearing on the question. These provisions are contained in Sections 60, 61, 63" and 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. They are as: follows: "section 60: " The landholder may sue any person claiming to be a tenant of a holding for a declaration of the right of such person. " section 61: "at any time during the continuance of a tenancy, either the landholder or the tenant may sue for a declaration as to any of the matters specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 55. " section 63: "when land claimed by a tenant as his