( 1 ) THIS is a pltf s appln. in revn.

( 2 ) THE pltf. who is an occupancy tenant, filed a suit against the defts. , the opposite parties in this ct. upon the allegation that they had wrongfully entered upon his land, and upon this ground he sued for recovery of possession and for damages. He also alleged -- and it is not disputed--that he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defts. on two previous occasions and that on each of these occasions he had had to recover possession through the Ct. The present suit was, therefore, the third which he had had to institute against these defts. and accordingly he also asked for a permanent injunction to restrain the defts. from interfering with his possession. This suit he filed in the civil Ct. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether the civil Ct. or the revenue Ct. had jurisdiction and was answered in favour of the latter. and that finding was upheld by the learned dist. J. on appeal.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was taken in this Ct. that no revn. lies. It is true, and it has repeatedly been laid down, that a Ct. has jurisdiction to decide a ease wrongly as well as rightly, but as was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Joy Chand v. Kamalaksha, 76 I. A. 131 : (A. I. R. (36)1949 P. C. 239 ). "although error in a decision of a subordinate Ct. does not by itself involve that the subordinate ct. has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revn. under sub-section (c) of Section 115, C. P. C.) nevertheless if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate Ct. exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, a case for revn. arises under Sub-section (a) or Sub-section (b) and sub-section (c) can be ignored. " There can be no doubt that the Ct. in this case had jurisdiction to decide whether the suit should have been filed before it or in a revenue Ct. and it had jurisdiction to decide that question erroneously. It has decided that the suit ought to have been filed in a revenue Ct. and it was then bound, as it has in fact done, to direct that the plaint be returned; but if in so directing the Cts decision on the question of jurisdiction was wrong then it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. I am, therefore, of opinion that the preliminary objection fails.

( 4 ) IT was then contended that the suit was not one which came within the ambit of Section 180, u. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, as it was a suit by a tenant against a trespasser. In D. N. Rege v. Muhammad Raider, A. I. R. (33) 1946 ALL. 879 : (I. L. R. (1946) ALL. 692 F. B.) a F. B. of this ct. said: "we do not think that Section 180 applies at all to cases in which the deft. has never given the pltf. reason to think that he is setting up a claim to be the proprietor of the land, and conversely that a suit in a civil Ct. does not lie when the deft. has given reason to think that he is claiming interest as a tenant. " the Ct. further pointed out that the jurisdiction of a Ct. depends upon the state of affairs which existed at the time of the institution of the suit, and that the pltf. should as far as possible ascertain on what ground the deft, claimed to occupy the land before he filed his plaint. In Baur v. Deo kali, 1950 A. L. J. 861 : (A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 610) it was held that for the pltf. merely to allege in his plaint that the defts. were trespassers was not of itself enough to give the civil Ct. jurisdiction. In the case before me, I am informed that in each of the two earlier suits the defts. set up a plea of tenancy, and that is the defence which is raised in this case. In the absence of anything to suggest the contrary the circumstances indicate that the pltf. must have known that that was the ground on which the deft, claimed possession of the land; and I observe that in the trial Ct. it was not in dispute that had the Suit been limited to one for possession and damages it ought to have been f