( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on the allegation that he, along with his two brothers, was the absolute owner of the plots in dispute. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff was in full possession of the said plots but defendants 1 to 7 were threatening to take forcible possession of the same. The plaintiff also alleged that defendants 1 to 7 were claiming their title through defendant 8, who was putting himself up as mutwalli, under a certain waqf and against whom the plaintiff had got a decree deciding the question in favour of the plaintiff and declaring that the said waqf was not valid. The plaint accordingly claimed a relief of permanent injunction against all the defendants.

( 2 ) THE written statement of defendants 1 to 7 alleged that the defendants were tenants of the plots in dispute through defendant 8, who was the lamlardar and owner of the land in question and against whom the defendants had also obtained a decree from the Revenue Court. The defendants also took the plea that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the civil Court.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif, Barabanki, who framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction. The trial Court decided the issue in favour of the defendants and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order, The learned District Judge reversed the order of the trial Court, held the suit to be within the jurisdiction of the civil Court and remanded it for trial by the Munsif. Dissatisfied with the order of, remand passed by the learned District Judge, the defendants have filed this appeal against it.

( 4 ) THE sole point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court and the order of the trial Court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court was a correct one. It may be mentioned at the very outset that this question is being agitated as a preliminary issue. In determining the question of jurisdiction at the initial stage, the Court is confined to the allegations in the plaint and has to accept them as correct. The position would be different after the suit has gone through all the stages of trial and the Court has given a finding as to whether those allegations are correct or otherwise. At the preliminary stage the jurisdiction of the Court must be determined by the allegations contained in the plaint itself. At the conclusion of the trial, the jurisdiction of the Court would be determined by the findings arrived at by the trial Court. If the allegations in the plaint are taken to be correct, then it is evident that the plaint as it stands could not have been filed in the revenue Court. The plaintiff has clearly asserted that he was in possession of the plots in dispute, that he was the owner of the same, that he was cultivating them as khudkhasht holder, that the defendants were setting up title through a person who was not (sic) a trespasser and that the defendants had threatened to take forcible possession of the land. On these allegations the only course open to the plaintiff was to file a suit for permanent injunction which he has done in the present case. The plaint nowhere alleges that the defendants were claiming title as tenants or that there was any substance behind any claim of tenancy. The learned counsel for the defendants has invited my attention to Section 63, U. P. Tenancy act. The said section would apply only if the suit is for a declaration that the property in dispute constitutes the sir or khudkast land of the plain-tiff. The present suit is not one for a declaration at all. It is a suit for injunction. He has cited a large number of cases in support of his argument, none of which seems to me to be applicable to the facts of th